| Replies
|
|
|
The Samsoniteman
|
Posted at 5:30 am on June 27, 2008 |
| Only a tiny proportion of that actually functions in phenotype generation, however. |
|
|
shadowpool
|
Posted at 11:11 am on June 26, 2008 |
| Yup! My comp is still calculating btw. :) |
|
|
Spasty
|
Posted at 10:43 am on June 26, 2008 |
| But isn't much of that identical in all humans? |
|
|
shadowpool
|
Posted at 11:59 pm on June 25, 2008 |
| I'm going to try 4^187500000 Then I'll raise that to the 16th. Maybe it'll be less memory intensive. |
|
|
Just Waiting Here
|
Posted at 11:54 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:51 pm on June 25, 2008
Quote: from Just Waiting Here at 3:50 am on June 26, 2008
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:33 pm on June 25, 2008
I was just curious about the storage capacity of the human genome. 
Curiousity crashed the computer :P. 
Almost. "mike@evilpenguin:~$ qalc -t 4^3000000000 > answer.txt terminate called after throwing an instance of 'cln::runtime_exception' what(): Out of virtual memory. Aborted" Hmmm. I will find a way to calculate this number! 
Lol, the best I could get is... 1125899906842624^1171875 LOL. |
|
|
shadowpool
|
Posted at 11:51 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from Just Waiting Here at 3:50 am on June 26, 2008
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:33 pm on June 25, 2008
I was just curious about the storage capacity of the human genome. 
Curiousity crashed the computer :P. 
Almost. "mike@evilpenguin:~$ qalc -t 4^3000000000 > answer.txt terminate called after throwing an instance of 'cln::runtime_exception' what(): Out of virtual memory. Aborted" Hmmm. I will find a way to calculate this number! |
|
|
Just Waiting Here
|
Posted at 11:50 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:33 pm on June 25, 2008
I was just curious about the storage capacity of the human genome. 
Curiousity crashed the computer :P. |
|
|
shadowpool
|
Posted at 11:37 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from h a t t at 3:33 am on June 26, 2008
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:27 pm on June 25, 2008
So four to the three billion. My computer will be up all night calculating this one.
Use a recursive function. It'll work perfectly! 
I'm attempting to use qalc which is an arbitrary precision calculator. Hopefully 2gb of ram is enough. |
|
|
h a t t
|
Posted at 11:33 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:27 pm on June 25, 2008
So four to the three billion. My computer will be up all night calculating this one.
Use a recursive function. It'll work perfectly! |
|
|
shadowpool
|
Posted at 11:33 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from Just Waiting Here at 3:29 am on June 26, 2008
There are four, as hithere said... AT, TA, GC, CG. Makes a huge difference, between the pairs bond up like this, but it's one individual strand, that can have A, T, G, or C that makes up the DNA (The second strand just matches up the pairs). So it would just be 4^3000000000 that should give you the possible numbers. Then again, I wonder if that's exactly correct, because with a different combination, we wouldn't exactly be human any more, would we? I mean... from human to human, the majority of the strand is the same. Even in monkeys, we don't differ in terms of DNA by that much... most of the code is very similar. That being said, there really aren't tht many combinations, as there has to be some of it that can't really be changed, right? 
I was just curious about the storage capacity of the human genome. |
|
|
Just Waiting Here
|
Posted at 11:29 pm on June 25, 2008 |
| There are four, as hithere said... AT, TA, GC, CG. Makes a huge difference, between the pairs bond up like this, but it's one individual strand, that can have A, T, G, or C that makes up the DNA (The second strand just matches up the pairs). So it would just be 4^3000000000 that should give you the possible numbers. Then again, I wonder if that's exactly correct, because with a different combination, we wouldn't exactly be human any more, would we? I mean... from human to human, the majority of the strand is the same. Even in monkeys, we don't differ in terms of DNA by that much... most of the code is very similar. That being said, there really aren't tht many combinations, as there has to be some of it that can't really be changed, right? |
|
|
shadowpool
|
Posted at 11:27 pm on June 25, 2008 |
| So four to the three billion. My computer will be up all night calculating this one. |
|
|
shadowpool
|
Posted at 11:26 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from hithere at 3:25 am on June 26, 2008
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:23 pm on June 25, 2008
Quote: from hithere at 3:22 am on June 26, 2008
no, each pair is AT, TA, GC, or CG
That actually matters? 
yeah, you have two strands, buddy. one base on either strand.
Goodness, that's right! |
|
|
ocdbabe
|
Posted at 11:26 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:23 pm on June 25, 2008
Quote: from hithere at 3:22 am on June 26, 2008
no, each pair is AT, TA, GC, or CG
That actually matters? 
yes, it does. |
|
|
hithere
|
Posted at 11:25 pm on June 25, 2008 |
Quote: from shadowpool at 11:23 pm on June 25, 2008
Quote: from hithere at 3:22 am on June 26, 2008
no, each pair is AT, TA, GC, or CG
That actually matters? 
yeah, you have two strands, buddy. one base on either strand. |
|
|
Most recent 15 of 18 previous replies displayed. |
|