YouTube video of the above paper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruH62vcIRzY) shows that for a moving cell state computer needs to calculate 2^n area. They used 500 cells to solve cancer cell problem on molecular layer. For a computer to solve this, it should calculate 2^500 ~ 10^150 areas for every update. Say, one area means one bit.

If a computer operates 10^30 bits per second it will take 10^120 seconds which is more than 10^15 years (age of this universe!) to solve the problem (following the way CA solves in the above paper).

The molecular CA presented in the above paper simply handles one intractable situation, which they have used for two problems.

]]>The comment whether elements are “Turing complete” is rediculus when it is said that they “can solve some problems” not all. Can we ask them about those some problems?

Looking for universality in the computing constructs of above work for “arbitrary programs” clearly shows lack of understanding of the work. The basic text books of CA teaches us about random attempts of replicating natural events.

It would be very interesting if some scientist in the world invents “arbitrary programming” in CA by theory. Then after that invention we may ask experimentalists to realize that. Till then it is better not to prove our weakness in the fundamentals.

]]>It makes no sense to claim that his method is not a computer. It is one, with many more processing elements.

It would also be good to know if his processing elements are “Turing Complete” – i.e. if they can execute arbitrary programs while maintaining the performance gains.

]]>