Problem Solving

[loopy]

G'Day,

Just an informal survey... how many people here have ever actively tried to solve any of the "great" problems of mankind? Like you know, made a serious attempt at finding a cure for cancer, dreamt up a feasible Grand Unified Theory or brainstormed a form superluminal travel?
In second year uni (2001) I heard about the Clay Maths Institutes Millenium Prizes for solving the top 7 math problems left for the century. I spent about 2 weeks on the Riemann Zeta hypothesis, and although I learnt a lot, I didn't get too far. I found the original PDF file on my computer the other day, I thought maybe this Christmas I might give it a once over again :)

Cheers,


Brad

[rumples riot]

I sometimes work on what I call the universal theory of trade and existence, where humans over the entire surface of the earth have free access to all the goods and resources; money is no longer the motivating force and the pursuit of knowledge is most important. Trouble with this theory is that those who have the most to gain at present have the ability to affect the minds of the ignorant. For the system to work we as humans need a radical change in our outlook, and those who benefit from the current system have to be eliminated from the equation. Now this might sound like the Marx Engles system, but it is not the same. I studied Marx and Engles at Uni, this is another system which has some similarities to Marxism, however is fundementally different in that there is still a heirarchy. That heirarchy is awarded on the basis of wisdom not monetary strength. The system is much more complex than this and would require several hundred pages to be fully exposed.

Aside from that, my sister is doing her fellowship at Stamford Uni in California on cancer research. Her doctorate was on mael cell development (skin pigment cells) and how the skin on your backside (due to it not getting any or much sun exposure) determines whether you get skin cancer. She hopes that one day she will be able to engineer a cell to eat cancer cells (she can already do this) and then for those very same cells to turn off once it can find no more cancerous cells ( this cannot do at present). It is actually more complicated than this, most of which I don't understand, but that is the jist. She has a higher IQ than I do and able to grasp much more complex things than I can. I am not that smart I was only able to get a bachelor of laws and a post graduate in laws at Uni. She is infinitely more equipped with a mind capable of much more understanding.

Paul

[loopy]

Hey how old is your sister...? :)

Nah, actually sounds exactly like the sort of thing that would interest me... I was reading a book by James Watson the other day (one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA), and in it he talks about cancer research. Apparently there is one specific gene that is *really* important in cancer research, but unfortunately for us, it was discovered by an American crporation in the 80's, and immediately patented. At the time they discovered it, they had no idea what it actually did, they just wanted the money... now anyone involved in cancer research using this specific gene is required to pay them a big fistfull of money...

Interesting theories on Economics - it was never my forte in high school, but I've read two interesting articles about it in the last weekend! The first, the 2004 Nobel for Economics was won by two American professors, for an idea they came up with in the late 70's. Basically, they said that in any economic system, long term stability of goals is the key factor to a stable economy. In this sense, they reasoned, it would be impractical, and bad for the economy, if a politician were making any decisions regarding it, as their decisions would be based on current politcal pressures.

The second article is in last weeks New Scientist - another clever dude has integrated the idea of quantum theory into economics. He's talking about public fund systems - everyone in the community contributes to a system, and everyone benefits from the system. The problem though comes in when one person cheats on the system - imagine tax. Someone can get away with not paying their tax, and still drive on good roads, go to hospital and send their kids to school. If no one contributes (ie no one pays their taxes) then nobody gets any benefit. What this guy reasoned, if you use entangled particles to determine who is cheating, and if each person bases their decisions on the states of these particles, then the whole system is stable - if someone cheats, most people end up cheating and no one benefits, so it's in his best interst not to cheat.

But yeah, interesting theories - why is your sister doing research in the US? She should have gone the Australia option... :)

Cheers,


Brad

[rumples riot]

She won two scholarships, The US Westinghouse and one here in Australia. She has a three year fellowship in the US first and then does two years in Adelaide after that. She will back for good in another year. She is 37 years old and unfortunately married to her work.

On the topic of Gene ownership, here in Australia, the ownership of a human biological process (ie a gene) has been banned. So in other words the US patent cannot apply here and we are free to use what ever gene is necessary. Only thing that might apply is the process of determining that gene. The process itself may have a patent on it. But since that process would now be seen as being generic; its ability to have any innovation would have slipped away and therefore the patent on the process would no longer apply. The tests for patent are that it must be innnovative and that as a result it would not have been thought of by the average person in the field of endeavour (been a long time since I studied patent law but that is the jist of it). Now since most people in the field of gene research are near genius level, then it would follow that obtaining a patent would be really hard in this country with the current test.

Anyway that is for the lawyers.

Paul

[ving]

eek!

[loopy]

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but my understanding is that the process of "multiplying" a specific DNA sequence (known as PCR, or polymerase chain reaction) is patented, with the proviso that universities can use it for free, but corporations maing profit need to pay? This seems like a good system to me - it allows work to be done, but also means the company can make a bit of money, which (ideally) would be pumped back into research.
I just quickly reread a section in that book - I got a few wires crossed. The gene I was talking about is known as "CCR5", and is patented by a company known as HGS (Human Genome Sciences). It was identified about a year after the patent was imposed that mutations in CCR5 could either increase or decrease a cells resistance to infection by HIV. The patent covers any research on the gene, with the intent to use the research in manufacturing a drug. That kinda puts a damper on AIDS research... :(

Cheers,


Brad

[loopy]

A point of interest too, and something I learnt today... how skin cancer is actually formed :) Everyone knows that the basic "control" inside the cell is performed by a combination of A, T, and G (ie DNA). A bonds to T, G bonds to C and vice versa. Well it seems that when UV strikes a cell, it causes "T" to "stick", that is, T bonds to T. When the strands separate to replicate, that causes mutations, and if these mutations are in the portion of the cell that corresponds to cell growth, then you get cancer.

So simple :)

Cheers,


Brad

[rumples riot]

Ahh yes but if it was so simple, people like my sister would have the cure by now.;) Now if we could only sort out world hunger we would have killed two birds with the one stone.

Paul

[loopy]

Here's a solution - stop having so many kids! :)

Cheers,


Brad

[rumples riot]

Don't have any of those, hence the reason I can afford all the expensive toys, other wise I would be broke from buying them really expensive toys, clothes and food!

[loopy]

:D

Incidently, I wasn't implying that the skin cancer solution was easy, just the problem - kinda like Fermat's Last, the question is easy enough to be understood by a kid, but the proof... :O

Cheers,


Brad

[rumples riot]

Didn't take offence, just keeping you on your toes. Its all cool, this is a theoretical debate. I am enjoying it.

[loopy]

Good stuff :)

Actually, I was reading on another site yesteday afternoon that a proof of Riemanns has already been found. Aparently the guy that found it has submitted a few wrong proofs in the past, but this one looks set to hold?

I'm gunna refocus my attention then on something that most would probably ignore, and that's Quantum Groups and Yang-Mills Theory. Apparently the maths here, when solved, will implie the existence of a new particle, travelling at the speed of light but having a finite positive mass.... a loopyion? :)

Cheers,


Brad