Researching DNA Computation: Questions & Answers

  • Thread starter Thread starter cam875
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computation Dna
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges and potential of DNA computation, particularly its parallel processing capabilities. Concerns are raised about the practicality of using DNA for complex calculations, such as addition problems involving large binary numbers, due to the need for significant memory and sorting of results. Participants explore how massively parallel systems like DNA computing could theoretically handle computations by allowing nodes to communicate and narrow down answers. However, the limitations of DNA computing are highlighted, especially regarding the lack of gain compared to traditional computing methods, which can amplify signals. Despite these challenges, there is mention of potential applications, such as smart drug delivery systems, suggesting that the research may have practical benefits beyond mere curiosity.
cam875
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
I have a problem with DNA computation that is currently being researched. Currently all the research is being done because cells are so parallel but how is that even useful. I keep thinking if you have this so called cell computer calculate every possible addition problem possible for a 32 bit number than what is the point your going to have to still have enough memory to store all the answers and sort through them. I mean its the same with all this quantum computation stuff. Your just going to end up with millions of different answers which you have to sort. Maybe I am just not understanding how cells are parallel and efficient for computation so can someone please enlighten me. Thanks in advance.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
In a massively parallel system (like DNA computing), the computing nodes themselves are supposed to do the 'sorting'. Suppose each node is checking if its own number divides a given large number. You could then have each node query three neighbors "do you have the answer, or have you heard about the answer?", then repeat a number of times until you can query just a few and find out if the answer is found. You can narrow it down with similar techniques.
 
but what if you wanted to add 10110101 to 100001010011, isn't that where current dna computation efforts are behind on. And even if dna can sort itself and all that, you still have to ravage through the results which is where it lacks also according to the articles I have read it took them along time to ravage through the results of the hamiltonian path problem.
 
cam875 said:
but what if you wanted to add 10110101 to 100001010011, isn't that where current dna computation efforts are behind on. And even if dna can sort itself and all that, you still have to ravage through the results which is where it lacks also according to the articles I have read it took them along time to ravage through the results of the hamiltonian path problem.

If you wanted to add two (large) binary numbers together there are parallelizable algorithms that don't require as much carrying as the standard 'grade school' algorithm. I don't know how these could be adopted for DNA computation, though.

On the computational power of DNA has a good overview of DNA computing as of last decade. The chart on p. 3 is especially helpful.
 
ok but it does seem strange, because it would seem like there is only one way to really add two numbers together and that involves a carry bit and everything just like todays full electronic binary adders do. But thanks for the link there.
 
cam875 said:
ok but it does seem strange, because it would seem like there is only one way to really add two numbers together and that involves a carry bit and everything just like todays full electronic binary adders do. But thanks for the link there.

A carry-lookahead adder requires much less carry propagation than the standard ripple-carry adder:
Al Aho and Jeff Ullman, Foundations of Computer Science ch. 13, pp. 716-721.

One way to reduce the number of carry bits for *multiplying* would be the Wallace tree multiplier:
Chris S. Wallace, "A Suggestion for a Fast Multiplier", IEEE Transactions on Electronic Computers EC-13:1 (1964), pp. 14-17.

These require O(log n) carry propagation for n-bit numbers, compared to O(n) for a the usual method.
 
Last edited:
but than it involves you having to multiply, does it not? which is just adding multiple times in a sense or am I confused?
 
I'm not in this field... but I hear people talk about DNA computing from time to time. I've always wondered, what's the point? There are plenty of other massively parallel architectures out there which sound much easier to implement. What's the advantage of DNA computing? Or is this something we're doing "just because it's cool"?
 
DNA computing is just a curiosity. It suffers from a fundamental problem, and that is of gain. Conventional transistors have gain, which allows the signal to be lifted out of the noise.

No such luck with DNA. They are probably using a roomfull of equipment to read the DNA.
 
  • #10
cam875 said:
but than it involves you having to multiply, does it not? which is just adding multiple times in a sense or am I confused?

A carry-lookahead adder does not require multiplication. I'm not sure if I understand your question...
 
  • #11
Cincinnatus said:
I'm not in this field... but I hear people talk about DNA computing from time to time. I've always wondered, what's the point? There are plenty of other massively parallel architectures out there which sound much easier to implement. What's the advantage of DNA computing? Or is this something we're doing "just because it's cool"?

Smart drug delivery systems, apparently, seem to be the goal of the research.
 
  • #12
kingdomof said:
Smart drug delivery systems, apparently, seem to be the goal of the research.

ah, of course, that makes sense. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
43
Views
8K
Back
Top