Pattern Recognition

How fast is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_recognition compared to usual transistor CPU? Can we use it to speed-up computations?

I have repeated problem with Wikipedia, because it fails to provide time scale for interaction description. Of course physical processes timing depends on many factors, but they could at least define some standard environment.

Also, how it compares in energy efficiency to transistor CPU?

i ain't no chemist yo

>>3
Chemistry is an unique programming language, so if you aint interested then you are a bad programmer.

>>4
Queer Studies is a unique kind of faggot discourse so if you aint interested then you are a bad faggot.

>>5
Queer Studies
Oh fuck... such discipline really does exist!

They should join forces with Haskell researchers.

>>6
Or Javascript ``code rockstars'' (read: shabbos goyim).

>>4
No, it is not a language at all.

See also
    Journal of Molecular Recognition
Read a few articles, it probably varies too much to give a generalization.

>>8
Sure it is, the molecules are the symbols, and the bonding is the grammar and syntax.

Molecules are held together by G-d's love, so that we don't fly apart.

>>9
See also Journal of Molecular Recognition
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

>>12
Reminds me of Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/
It's a kike newspaper for kikes. Also a paywall.

>>10
Molecules are programs, while atoms are akin to lambda of Lisp.

So where in Lisp you use lambda to compose programs, in chemistry you use atoms. The only problem are side effects and lack of encapsulation.

>>14
So the name of Scheme's predicate "atom?" isn't just a metaphor, but has profound meaning.

>>15
And λ too!

>>1
You are like asking, "Are chemical interactions/reactions faster than electronic currents that are buffered by an transistor in a massive array to determine voltage levels at a fixed rate?" Well, if you account that these CPUs depend on these chemical[/physical] interactions, and that CPUs most be fixed with a clock to determine if a transistor was initiated, It should be blatant that chemical interactions, like temperature, occur at more frequent rates than CPUs cycles. If the questions was that if we could ever achieve processing rates as fast as molecular reactions, then we need some other force that we can manipulate than electrons in semiconductors, and that we can impede, to be able to physically interact with an interface we can physically use for its design.

tl;dr ver: Not on this universe. Unless we learn of a way manipulate nuclear force, or some other force we have not found, that can interact with our "computers"

Also, this is a /tech/ question, not /prog/. The closes thing we have on something like that is Smart materials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_material
[I'd call it Memory materials]

>>16
/tech/ is shit

biological systems sre SLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOW. onlyreason ouar brians works sso well is theyre MASSIVELY paraellel.

>>16
Are chemical interactions/reactions faster than electronic currents that are buffered by an transistor in a massive array to determine voltage levels at a fixed rate?"
The Wikipedia article especially mentions that molecular simulations are very computationally expensive: i.e. folding a single protein requires a few seconds of supercomputer time. So it should make sense to use proteins directly to do the computation, especially because proteins are Turing Complete and you can run a massive amount of them in parallel. It looks like proteins are energy efficient compared, compared to your computer program, giving you enormous electricity bill.

>>18
Actually, processes inside single cell organisms are pretty fast and there are a lot of them. I.e. there are 1e7 ribosomes running in parallel inside a single cell. Basically each cell has 1e7 very fast microcontrollers inside.

The brain is not a computer or equivalent to computers.

>>21
Brain is a data structure.
Universe is the computer.

>>22
My penis is a data structure.
Your anus is the computer.