-- Posted by shadowpool at 11:21 pm on June 25, 2008 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. Each pair is either AT or GC.   So 2^3000000000 will give me the number of possible combinations, right? -- Posted by hithere at 11:22 pm on June 25, 2008 no, each pair is AT, TA, GC, or CG -- Posted by 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? -- Posted by emmy350 at 11:24 pm on June 25, 2008 God, I read the number in this book I'm reading, I don't remember it...Where'd you get your figures? -- Posted by hithere 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. -- Posted by ocdbabe 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. -- Posted by shadowpool 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!   -- Posted by 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. -- Posted by Just Waiting Here 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? -- Posted by shadowpool 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.   -- Posted by h a t t 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! -- Posted by shadowpool 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. -- Posted by Just Waiting Here 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. -- Posted by 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! -- Posted by Just Waiting Here 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. -- Posted by shadowpool 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. -- Posted by Spasty at 10:43 am on June 26, 2008 But isn't much of that identical in all humans? -- Posted by shadowpool at 11:11 am on June 26, 2008 Yup! My comp is still calculating btw.  :) -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 5:30 am on June 27, 2008 Only a tiny proportion of that actually functions in phenotype generation, however.