ArQule Message Board - Msg: 3346088

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : ArQule

ARQL 20.00

0.0%

Jan 16 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Peter Silsbee who wrote (170)	2/5/1998 1:42:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) of 399

What are the criteria of "promising"? That is part of the issue. What is promising is unknown because if you knew that, you wouldn't have to extend the search vector into another dimension. Promising is heuristic and your assertion begs the question. Let's assume perfect rigor is available within the criteria of "promising", .i.e. we're starting on a solid basis on a sub-search. The sub-search necessarily adds combinatorial complexity up to the number of additional components added so that with k more points of complexity we can only be confident in retaining our original chemical predictability by trying (m + k)^n possibilities, where n is number of functionally useful twists in the original molecule, and m is the number of functional components. It's not hard to see that this blows up on you. And this is only a minimum of required trials. I don't see where the SBD group constrains the blowup. Indeed, it enters its own factor, j, into the equation, (j + m + k)^n, or j*(m + k)^n. Please tell me. What do the theoreticians say about practicality?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next