[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ian

On 2010-07-18 11:24, Ian Glendinning wrote:
> Hi Magnus, I'm not trying to get you to abandon anything (!?!) .... I
> would like to use your analogy if we can, beyond 3D in the other
> (agreed, implicit) dimensions. I want you to convince me.
>
> The problem is still in this sentence
>
> " I will not abandon the crisp border between chemical bonding and 3D
> fit bonding."
>
> I just do not see any example that illustrates this crisp border, or
> an argument. Still seems a sliding scale where geometry (topology) is
> always significant, but strong ionic bonding (and other chemical
> bonding) becomes decreasingly significant.

Why would you say geometry is significant for chemical bonding?

My understanding of chemical reactions is that if two molecules that 
*can* bond are sufficiently close, then they will re-orient themselves 
so that the bond is made where they want it to be. Very similar to two 
bipolar magnets that re-orient themselves if they get close enough, and 
then snap into place.

So, yes, closeness is always required, but not orientation.

Orientation is only significant when molecules are not attracted to 
eachother by chemical means. Then, they will not re-orient themseleves 
when they get close, they will simply continue on their path and if they 
happen to fit, they will, otherwise they will bounce back.

I can't really see why you don't see that as significant? Don't you 
agree with my chemical knowledge/ignorance regarding re-orientation like 
magnets? Or don't you realize that there is such a thing as two 
molecules that are not attracted to eachother chemically at all?

> I like the topology aspect though, I do think you are onto something
> important .... a nucleus is "bonded" to a cell by being physically
> enclosed and mutually dependent .... to take it a step further.

Yes, that is quite a big step further, but along the same evolutionary path.

	Magnus