5 ms·

How is DNA not an array? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lisp lists are linked lists, so elements don't have to be next to each other in memory. On the other hand,

How is DNA not an array? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lisp lists are linked lists, so elements don't have to be next to each other in memory. On the other hand, DNA is stored and processed from one molecule to the next one physically.

polos 17y ago
Lists or arrays? Nature doesn't know arrays. There's no index (which is the only real distinctive between arrays and lists), and the next atom of information can be (physically) more or less distant from the previous one, so: Nature only uses lists. Think of it: arrays are only used because of faster accessing reasons, otherwise you never would even think of preferring arrays over lists. Lists are perfect, because they already contain the previous and the after information bit, which is always crucial to us -- we all are enclosed in the time barrier -- and all of other memory alignment and usage, invented by computer scientists, were simply born out of the necessity of speed, and nothing else. Lists contain the information stored in the simplest possible way, without wasting any bit of information (which would be necessary if you would care about an index). Interconnection is the real reason why computers never will be able to substitute a human brain -- and this statement (or better: fact) will never grow old...
- astine 17y ago
  That is such a bone-headed analysis, I'm not sure how to respond. If by index, you mean the reference we use to access an element of an array, that is just the physical location of that element in memory with the offset of the array subtracted. (High-level languiges do math under the covers to simplify things for the progammer, but that's basically it.) Lists use the exact same information., except they contain it literally. Lists are perfect, because they already contain the previous and the after information bit, which is always crucial to us -- we all are enclosed in the time barrier -- and all of other memory alignment and usage, invented by computer scientists, were simply born out of the necessity of speed, and nothing else. No , they were born because they are much simpler to implement and imagine than linked lists. They continue to be used be used becaue they are faster simpler, and use less space than linked lists. Nature only uses lists. No, Nature uses neither lists nor arrays. Atoms, generally are neither fixed in location (as in the case of arrays), nor do they conain the location of their neighbors (as in the case of lists.) Interconnection is the real reason why computers ne.ver will be able to substitute a human brain -- and this statement (or better: fact) will never grow old... Simply untrue. The fact is that both lists and arrays are abstractions really exist outside of computers. One may argue wither whetehr the human brain is or molecules are more organized as a list or an array, but it's a dumb debate.
- Scriptor 17y ago
  "the next atom of information can be (physically) more or less distant from the previous one" Not true, at least with something like DNA. When something like RNA polymerase goes through DNA, it always goes to the physically closest nucleotide. Sure there is a "link" between bases in the form of molecular bonds, but this bond only works between nucleotides right next to each other. No nucleotide can bond to a nucleotide farther away, and have a polymerase follow that bond. If DNA were a linked list, it would basically be one where every element is adjacent to the next one in memory. The whole point of a linked list is that they don't have to be like that, one element can point to another 4, 12, 32, etc bytes away. That way insertions and deletions are much easier. DNA works much more like an array. The "index" for a gene is the promoter sequence at its beginning. A protein complex forms there and polymerase runs down sequentially from nucleotide to the next physically closest nucleotide. Also, why do you say computers will never substitute a brain when linked lists can quite easily represent a neural network?
  - polos 17y ago
    Computer memory is always aligned in a one-dimensional, (relatively) huge array. All of artificial intelligence is based on a one-dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional fact (our physical existence). DNA, our brain, every bit of information in Nature, always, exclusively, uses all 3 physical dimensions present to store its data, so we never will be able to directly compete with Nature in that fact. Because every dimension present has its own role, and how would you represent that in a simple computer memory (leaving out the fact that computer memory is really huge and really slow compared to the memory systems of Nature). Do you (personally) know anything about how Nature uses all of the 3 dimensions present, to align its data in a really ingenious and unique way? Do you? Physically near has a special meaning in our human brain, and influences all the bits of information near the stored information. So, you see, Nature is able to use all of the 3 dimensions of physical reality to represent its data, while computers (and, consequently, all of AI) seems to be condemned to use a 1 dimensional, slow, physically huge, representation... So, please please, don't directly compare Nature with human investigation -- they are as far from each other as our planet is from sun... The more you observe Nature (and I really do!), the more you experience yourself really ignorant about the Intelligence hiding behind...

polos 17y ago

Lists or arrays? Nature doesn't know arrays. There's no index (which is the only real distinctive between arrays and lists), and the next atom of information can be (physically) more or less distant from the previous one, so: Nature only uses lists. Think of it: arrays are only used because of faster accessing reasons, otherwise you never would even think of preferring arrays over lists. Lists are perfect, because they already contain the previous and the after information bit, which is always crucial to us -- we all are enclosed in the time barrier -- and all of other memory alignment and usage, invented by computer scientists, were simply born out of the necessity of speed, and nothing else. Lists contain the information stored in the simplest possible way, without wasting any bit of information (which would be necessary if you would care about an index). Interconnection is the real reason why computers never will be able to substitute a human brain -- and this statement (or better: fact) will never grow old...

astine 17y ago
That is such a bone-headed analysis, I'm not sure how to respond. If by index, you mean the reference we use to access an element of an array, that is just the physical location of that element in memory with the offset of the array subtracted. (High-level languiges do math under the covers to simplify things for the progammer, but that's basically it.) Lists use the exact same information., except they contain it literally. Lists are perfect, because they already contain the previous and the after information bit, which is always crucial to us -- we all are enclosed in the time barrier -- and all of other memory alignment and usage, invented by computer scientists, were simply born out of the necessity of speed, and nothing else. No , they were born because they are much simpler to implement and imagine than linked lists. They continue to be used be used becaue they are faster simpler, and use less space than linked lists. Nature only uses lists. No, Nature uses neither lists nor arrays. Atoms, generally are neither fixed in location (as in the case of arrays), nor do they conain the location of their neighbors (as in the case of lists.) Interconnection is the real reason why computers ne.ver will be able to substitute a human brain -- and this statement (or better: fact) will never grow old... Simply untrue. The fact is that both lists and arrays are abstractions really exist outside of computers. One may argue wither whetehr the human brain is or molecules are more organized as a list or an array, but it's a dumb debate.
Scriptor 17y ago
"the next atom of information can be (physically) more or less distant from the previous one" Not true, at least with something like DNA. When something like RNA polymerase goes through DNA, it always goes to the physically closest nucleotide. Sure there is a "link" between bases in the form of molecular bonds, but this bond only works between nucleotides right next to each other. No nucleotide can bond to a nucleotide farther away, and have a polymerase follow that bond. If DNA were a linked list, it would basically be one where every element is adjacent to the next one in memory. The whole point of a linked list is that they don't have to be like that, one element can point to another 4, 12, 32, etc bytes away. That way insertions and deletions are much easier. DNA works much more like an array. The "index" for a gene is the promoter sequence at its beginning. A protein complex forms there and polymerase runs down sequentially from nucleotide to the next physically closest nucleotide. Also, why do you say computers will never substitute a brain when linked lists can quite easily represent a neural network?
- polos 17y ago
  Computer memory is always aligned in a one-dimensional, (relatively) huge array. All of artificial intelligence is based on a one-dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional fact (our physical existence). DNA, our brain, every bit of information in Nature, always, exclusively, uses all 3 physical dimensions present to store its data, so we never will be able to directly compete with Nature in that fact. Because every dimension present has its own role, and how would you represent that in a simple computer memory (leaving out the fact that computer memory is really huge and really slow compared to the memory systems of Nature). Do you (personally) know anything about how Nature uses all of the 3 dimensions present, to align its data in a really ingenious and unique way? Do you? Physically near has a special meaning in our human brain, and influences all the bits of information near the stored information. So, you see, Nature is able to use all of the 3 dimensions of physical reality to represent its data, while computers (and, consequently, all of AI) seems to be condemned to use a 1 dimensional, slow, physically huge, representation... So, please please, don't directly compare Nature with human investigation -- they are as far from each other as our planet is from sun... The more you observe Nature (and I really do!), the more you experience yourself really ignorant about the Intelligence hiding behind...