[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

So in fact Magnus,

It's not 3D Fit , but 3D Fit "ONLY" ... arrangements created without
ANY bonding a chemist would call chemical bonding .... not whether
geometry is significant, since it is always of some significance.

The fuzziness would be on the sliding scale of what counts as chemical
bonding, but I guess you are free to define the condition of no
bonding (no bonding of significance).

A little sceptical that there may in fact be are other fit-only /
non-bonding cases - but we'd have to get into the depths of physical
chemistry ... catalysts, surfactants, detergents, etc ... that we
might not usefully consider as part of the "organic" layer.

I think we need to move on to the "significance" of the fit definition
.... what is enabled by that definition. (See the general comments by
Krim et al about the "value" in finely honed definitions of a given
layer.) I'm still a process man at heart.

Ian

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> 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
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>