Talk:Molecular processor

Not a cut and paste I am the original with peer review for acceptance privilege and right. Typically I am not into self promotion, however, please actually contribute in a positive way on this page to move this forward.


 * I think you're saying that much of this article, particularly the "Example" section, is in fact taken directly from your own original work. Is that correct? andy (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the DNA_Computers reference is correct or reproducible. Controllable methods in definition or refernce through authorship are not clear. Accordingly a basic level of expertise must be used to define the area of molecular processors (for use in organic and inorganic computing). Yakkov's work in Israel that came out in Nature two or three months after my talk in 2004, New Orleans, misses some major conceptual items that have been deleted from this definition.

Problems with other areas include 1- the DNA is both a template and software, in cDNA format or DNA format and may include other formats yet undefined. 2- they don't actually have a working model. Their paper review of other peoples work. 3- Hamiltons work only deals with molecular interaction through a given path. It does not deal with actuality and is in line with computational processing of ICs, though it actully talks about DNA. 4- Israels work does not provide for a strong foundation without US collaboration, overall. Provided with references I would be happy to re-review. 5- remember Einstein's work was E=hv... I mean E=mc2 where his background in fluid dynamic and particulate flow for Physicists (id his phd) studying geology might be applicable in studying molecular processes, however we have to go back to frequency components of E=hv and he gets left out. Sorry Einstein. His cousin might understand the theory of relativity.

This following definition is incorrect. You need to alter it or it will be altered:

A molecular processor is a processor that is built on a molecular scale rather than on a silicon chip integrated circuit.[1]

--/Russell Auger PhD/ 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Auger (talk • contribs)


 * What would a better definition be? The Wikipedia manual of style calls for the opening paragraph of an article to give a clear definition of the topic of the article.  That paragraph should generally start with a declarative sentence that tells the reader what the topic of the article is.  The subject of that sentence should be in bold, and usually match the name of the article. In other words, we need to start the article with a sentence of the form "A molecular processor is . . ." that gives a definition that the lay reader can understand.  I do think it's important to provide a general enough definition to cover all of the various approaches that may currently be under consideration (unless the article is intended to address only a specific kind of molecular processor, in which case it may need to be given a more specific title). EastTN (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And all the knockout gene Nobel Prize winners... give it a rest for a bit. We are trying to fix all the holes that exist, let alone the new ones you try to create. --/Russell Auger PhD/ 20:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Auger (talk • contribs)


 * Who is "we"? The only editor who has made a substantial contribution to the content is yourself. andy (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

what is your intent? Are you in shanghai or working for IBM in Chicago? --/Russell Auger PhD/ 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Auger (talk • contribs)


 * Please assume good faith. Our intent is simply to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia possible.EastTN (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot. you are using this as online gaming forum. both in the chicago area on the street and online. please stop reviewing and allow other users to contribute without influence by personal communication via various channels. --/Russell Auger PhD/ 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Auger (talk • contribs)


 * What do you mean by "in the chicago area on the street and online"? Are you saying that an editor has personally approached you? andy (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Russell, you seem to be laboring under some mistaken assumptions. I am not in the Chicago area and I have not had any personal communications regarding this article outside of my comments on Wikipedia - all of which are completely visible to you and to any other editor who's interested in looking at them.  I have most definitely not prevented anyone - including you - from contributing to this article.  I am also not playing games.  No one "owns" an article on Wikipedia.  You may not see it, or understand why, but the approach you're taking to relating to other editors is almost certainly going to lead to your being blocked from editing by one of the administrators.  I don't want that to happen.  But there's nothing I can do to prevent it if you won't listen and start playing by the rules of the Wikipedia community. Please, slow down, take the time to read the various policies that people have pointed out to you, and let us help you with this topic! EastTN (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Too late - it's happened. He's blocked. So it goes. The question now is, will he learn to behave properly when the block expires? andy (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)