Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Math Technology

A Computer Made From DNA Can Compute the Square Root of 900 (newscientist.com) 36

Posted by BeauHD from the double-stranded dept.
A computer made from strands of DNA in a test tube can calculate the square root of numbers up to 900. New Scientist reports: Chunlei Guo at the University of Rochester in New York state and colleagues developed a computer that uses 32 strands of DNA to store and process information. It can calculate the square root of square numbers 1, 4, 9, 16, 25 and so on up to 900. The DNA computer uses a process known as hybridization, which occurs when two strands of DNA attach together to form double-stranded DNA.

To start, the team encodes a number onto the DNA using a combination of ten building blocks. Each combination represents a different number up to 900, and is attached to a fluorescence marker. The team then controls hybridization in such a way that it changes the overall fluorescent signal so that it corresponds to the square root of the original number. The number can then be deduced from the color. The DNA computer could help to develop more complex computing circuits, says Guo. Guo believes DNA computers may one day replace traditional computers for complex computations. The findings have been published in the journal Small.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Computer Made From DNA Can Compute the Square Root of 900 More

A Computer Made From DNA Can Compute the Square Root of 900

Comments Filter:

  • I'm a computer made of DNA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And I can do better than that

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by U0K ( 6195040 )
      Yes. Very funny.
      I'd expect you to be able to do better than 32 strands of DNA.

      But let's put that into perspective, maybe.
      Each chromosome is formed by 2 strands of DNA. Human cells have 46 chromosomes. The average human adult brain has about 10^11 brain cells.
      That would be an average 9.2*10^12 strands of DNA in your brain, if my calculation is correct.
      Someone as smart as you should easily see that this is orders of magnitudes more. Can you do that much better?
    • I get the joke; but (in their computing capacity) humans are arguably 'made of DNA' sort of the way computers are 'made of VHDL'(or verilog, or one of the formats for chip layout or PCB design, it's a slightly loose analogy).

      DNA isn't a 100% static blueprint, there are assorted complications with expression regulation on an ongoing basis; but most of what we would describe ourselves as doing, especially at the level of something like math, is being done by structures that DNA coded for; not by using DNA

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by gl4ss ( 559668 )

        their thing is a computer in the old sense and not in the programmable sense though.

        sure makes for better headlines to call it a computer than a process to calculate square root

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Wake me when I calculates the square root of 1764

    • Can I have your UID since I don't think you'll be calculating it in your sleep any time soon?

  • It's just 5 bits storage!

    Maybe the titles should be written with more care!

  • To start, the team encodes a number onto the sides of literally ten wood building blocks. Each combination represents a different number up to 900, and is attached to a fluorescence marker. The team then tells my one year old child in such a way that it changes the overall fluorescent signal so that it corresponds to the square root of the original number. The number can then be deduced from the color. Do you think my one year old is a computer? Did the team or my one year old do anything novel?

    • Your one year old is as much a computer in this scenario as a PLA responsible for control signals is. That is to say, part of one. The rest of the computer is embodied in the other researchers, the blocks, and the fluorescent marker.

    • I'm not sure I fully understand what is involved in "The team then controls hybridization in such a way that it changes the overall fluorescent signal", that could conceivably involve basically doing the computation themselves and just using the DNA as a display; or it could be a description of a more hands-off manipulation of conditions where the response of the DNA elements does the work; but assuming it isn't the former it seems like perfectly legitimate(if quite limited in this incarnation) 'computing'.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      If you can get your one year-old to construct something you could construe as a NAND gate, that would look pretty un-impressive too. But with a NAND gate you can reproduce any of the fundamental Boolean operations that underlie the operation of a modern digital computer. If you had enough one-year-olds, and could somehow keep them on task, and could interconnect the products of their work, you could build a digital computer from them in the same way you can build a writing machine from an infinite number o

  • I remember reading about DNA computing in the late 1990s, tackling far more difficult problems. Sure, maybe at some point it will "replace traditional computers for complex calculations", but if this is considered worth reporting then I won't hold my breath.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kalpol ( 714519 )
      Yeah this isn't new, I just commented down below but I attended a talk by a researcher in 2002 who had done it at UT.

  • While our human arrogance like to think of us as the universes greatest computer. We actually kinda suck, we are amazing in a point of view of random evolution, but in terms of being a good computer we kinda suck.

    Our thought processes take so many shortcuts. We can fixate on loose correlational connections (Eg. There was a Chinese food place that I really liked, until one time after I had Chinese food there, I got the flu and I was sick for weeks. after I got better I never went back to that place. My rati

  • I went to a talk in 2002 at UT by a researcher who had created a DNA computer that could do square roots. I don't see how this is groundbreaking, at all.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nashv ( 1479253 )

      It is a quantitative improvement. Earlier versions of this could do square roots upto 15. This one does upto 900. Agreed, though, not a breakthrough in any sense.

  • I am a computer made of DNA, you insensitive clod ...

  • The title to the article is awful. Many people, who are themselves composed of DNA can manually calculate square roots. This predates this discovery by centuries. I think they meant something else.

    Also, are we now at risk, if this experiment ever gets into the environment, to have mutated plants and animals that have a predilection for the number 30?

  • That is why we were given math assignments of 50 or 100 math problems to solve https://www.bragmyshoes.com/lo... [bragmyshoes.com]
  • A good and interesting invention. It would be really interesting to use. [hoverboardsgeek.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close