[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements
From: |
Marcus G. Daniels |
Subject: |
Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:49:54 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061107) |
Scott Christley wrote:
This is often call the state explosion problem, and it becomes a
problem when state change is more than changing the value of a
variable but implies functional change as well. If you design a model
where you explicitly handle all of those states, that means you need
to explicitly write code for the function of the agent for each
states. What if the number of states is exponential?
I think that's overstating it a bit. A larger space means more things
are possible, but the interpreter of that space can still be simple. A
codon is simple and stable in spite of the fact a larger genomes can
code for more complex things. Similarly, the instruction set of a CPU
is small and finite and relatively straightforward to get working
compared to the virtually infinite number of programs than can be
written with that set of opcodes.
This might be no big deal, but another complexity is that under
different circumstances, the splicing process produces different RNA.
So the basic idea that a single gene (DNA) produces a single Protein
is not true, there are multiple proteins produced through alternative
splices.
Ok,1) the notion of alternatives and 2) information about how to
regulate the alternatives
In biology, a protein's function is defined by its structure but that
structure is not fixed, enzymes and other molecules often change that
structure, so a protein is considered to have different conformations.
and 3) context dependency
Now you are faced with a scenario that the hyperspace is so large that
you cannot code in all of the possible interactions ahead of time.
But it's mainly about computer runtime not human time (e.g. too many
coding details).
Well (one of) the key problem is going to be exactly how do two
unknown protein 3 dimensional structures interact. If you take the
naive approach you say, okay we will model the atoms of the two
structures, calculate all the forces, and make some determination on
whether they bind, etc etc. But you cannot use that approach when
attempting to get your higher level patterns because it is too
computationally complex for a system with lots of interacting proteins.
Some have been known to take a swing at this:
http://www.t10.lanl.gov/kys
http://mdgrape.gsc.riken.jp
What you need then is to do that naive approach once, then translate
the result into a rule.
Probably more like a few hundred times per different perspectives and
assumptions to know when that rule is really there and not just
statistical noise, or some event correlated to another that is the real
cause. :-)
However that rule has two parts, the protein X and Y is okay but what
about the do something part. What if you don't know all the possible
"do somethings" ahead of time? In a really cool evolutionary model
you would not, this would be new functionality that was acquired.
A common objection to agent modeling is along the lines of "You know, I
can think of N different ways you could get that result -- you found one
using a liberal tolerance for error on your inputs." An evolutionary
model may help you find more, but what do they have to do with the real
world? E.g. how much error is involved in the conformational estimates
of X and Y and how does that impact the extent to which that "something"
means anything?
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, (continued)
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, glen e. p. ropella, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Marcus G. Daniels, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, glen e. p. ropella, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Marcus G. Daniels, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, glen e. p. ropella, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Marcus G. Daniels, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, glen e. p. ropella, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Marcus G. Daniels, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Russell Standish, 2006/11/29
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Scott Christley, 2006/11/29
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements,
Marcus G. Daniels <=
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Scott Christley, 2006/11/30
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Marcus G. Daniels, 2006/11/30
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Scott Christley, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Marcus G. Daniels, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Scott Christley, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Maarten Sierhuis, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, glen e. p. ropella, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Scott Christley, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Marcus G. Daniels, 2006/11/27
- Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements, Scott Christley, 2006/11/29