Why isn't there much buzz about biological computers in comparison to quantum computers?

I'm not buttmad as you claim.

The computer revolution already happened morons, and it is all about electronics.

YOU CHOSE THE WRONG MAJOR DUM DUMS.

>Comp Sci kids are mad because their major will be worthless within the next decade.

Can't make this shit up desu. Moore's law slowing down was the best day of my life.

>lowly engineer talks about the wrong major
300k starting or you might as well kill yourself

Wait, wait.
Is this study saying that they achieved parallel computing with protein filaments AND it's more energy efficient than with silicon processors?

Quantum computers don't solve NP-complete problems, and I doubt any computer of any kind can even in principle. That abstract is kind of weird.

What?
The Subset sum problem can be solved in psuedopolynomial time.

Moore's law is one facet of general exponential growth. Media is getting excited about naive statements, when die shrinks are just one part of the picture.

All sciences can contribute to future technology, and I do not dismiss bio-computing, but brute-forcing NP-complete problems is honestly pathetic compared to quantum speedup. Congratulations on progress, but come to me when you have enough problems solved to have a road to usability.

No idea what makes you think future methods of computation will suddenly drop all existing comp sci theory. Maybe you're just picking on the people who learn to code and think they're set for life. Maybe you don't know what the fuck comp sci is.

What's pseudo-polynomial time, user? Wikipedia says it's still exponential which makes sense given how P=NP is kind of a big deal, but what are the practical implications of pseudo-polynomial solution?

geeksforgeeks.org/dynamic-programming-subset-sum-problem/

>geeksforgeeks.org/dynamic-programming-subset-sum-problem/
Yah, that's exponential if the sum is big, am I missing something?

>Why are physics kids so buttmad about this, is it because biocomputers have more viability than quantum computers?
Surely biophysicists would be the ones developing these computers; why would physics kids be upset about somebody doing physics?
More fundamentally though, why can't you just be happy about both? They really are like apples and oranges - you will never find a protein factoring integers in polynomial time.
Stop being such a Luddite.

You will be computing with biological reaction instead of manipulating 0 and 1, the science of computation is still the same dingus

Pic rel. is the quoted thread that shows the level of intellect of mathfags on Veeky Forums. Literally misinterpreting an experiment like retards and posting nonsense about it. Report and ban.

>Nevertheless, we argue that our approach has the potential to be more scalable in practice than other approaches

Don't know if that is just a difference in cultures, but that seems like outrageously unjustified hype.

From my understanding normal computers only use 0 and 1, quantum computers can use 0 and 1 at the same time, and biocomputers use DNA which has 4 base pairs, allowing for speedy computation.

4>3>2

Biocomputers really are the future if you think about it.

Plus that's not even accounting for the ability to form polypeptide chains with primary, secondary, tertiary and Quaternary form and function. So add about 20~ more types of bits if you are just doing primary structure.

Personally I think biocomputers will be an enormous boon to the field of medical technology. a computer that runs off of ATP can be hooked up to a patient then react with the different proteins or states of the body to output highly accurate, real time data on really hard to quantify things. This is just all speculation but I'd love to be able to monitor protein levels in real time.

This is exactly why the dismissal of CS in this thread is silly - if blindly increasing the base of our computations lead to efficiency we would have continued using decimal computers. This problem is solved over 50 years ago, e is the optimal base which makes ternary slightly more efficient than binary. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix_economy

Quantum computation is a completely separate topic, and ternary quantum systems exist.

>needs to assert ternary quantum systems exist
Your CS retardation is showing, everyone already knows that n-ary systems can be encoded by quantum systems, its called superposition you assclown. Once again, CS majors have proven themselves to be utterly useless.

Are you fucking high? I was replying to someone who didn't seem to understand. I wouldn't have needed to assert such if he didn't relate "quantum" to "binary". Pay attention.

We actually studied this a little bit in the course I just finished -- solely qualitative though. It seems very interesting. Nucleic polymers are stable and predictable and the possibilities in terms of storing, receiving, and processing information are essentially limitless. I highly doubt we will ever see it become viable though.

Water computers is wher it's at, man
youtube.com/watch?v=1CfmV9GhCVY

Uh ok... What's a nanoreplication framework?

>> fast
Biological computers run at the speed of diffusion and chemical reactions, which are slow.

Biological computers will never replace regular computers. One, biology is noisy, two it's hard to get data in and out of biological system, three it's relatively slow.

The only thing it's got going for it is that you can do a lot of stuff in parallel and operate in the human body.

Parallelism only buys you so much, you can only be as fast as the serial steps.

Because of latency we could never use them to play videogames.

Quantum computers are cool because they might do stuff that would take a classical computer ages to do. Particulary cool is doing stuff like quantum multibody simulation in reasonable time.

If we could do that we could simulate molecules and shit very fast. Which would let us do biology, without biology.

>Biological computers will never replace regular computers.
AKA computers will never replace wetware

> One, biology is noisy,
Perhaps on Veeky Forums and reddit.

>two it's hard to get data in and out of biological system,
a solvable problem, check out interfacing

> three it's relatively slow.
you really missed the idea here.