Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[John R Helliwell]

Oh, gosh. Pete, I am sorry but I had already submitted a proposal. As you say 
nanogravity is surely next up and then picogravity. While I am waiting for Elon 
to get back to me I have been looking into an ultimate brightness ‘top pocket 
synchrotron’. This single electron device has the smallest emittance we can 
get, then it passes through an undulator of alternating positive and negative 
ions. (A resemblance to a sodium chloride belies its its actual complexity).  
All best wishes,
John  

Emeritus Professor John R Helliwell DSc




> On 2 Apr 2024, at 09:03, Pete Dunten  wrote:
> 
> The obvious project worthy of such funding is crystallization in ultra low 
> gravity.  Perfectly formed crystals are priceless and the basis for advances 
> in structural biology.  Crystal growth on the ISS, in orbit 254 miles above 
> the Earth, is considered growth in microgravity.  Now consider the Moon, at 
> 238,855 miles from Earth, where Earth's gravity, obeying the inverse square 
> law, is much weaker.  Moving facilities from one massive body (the Earth) to 
> another with its own gravity (the Moon), at great expense, may not seem a 
> good idea at first blush.  Now consider tunneling to the center of the Moon, 
> whose core is solid, and excavating a hollow, spherical cavity to house the 
> crystallization lab.  One elegantly escapes the influence of lunar gravity.
> 
> Space X and the Boring Company are one step ahead of us, of course, and have 
> already begun this 'PicoGrav' program on the dark side of the moon.  This 
> note is meant to save everyone the trouble of putting together an 
> application.  History has shown that competing against industry is a losing 
> strategy - the Human Genome Project being a fine example.  Stay tuned for 
> updates from the astro-engineer on the Moon in charge of the project, Major 
> Tom.  If you're lucky, you can enjoy a Space X resupply mission flyby of the 
> ISS on its way to the Moon on one of the ISS webcams at 
> -https://www.webcamtaxi.com/en/space/earth-live-cam1.html
> 
> Just the messanger, Pete
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
> 
> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing 
> list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Hekstra, Doeke Romke]

To clarify, the simulations would be money-intensive. The interpretation would 
(at first!) be people-intensive.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Hekstra, Doeke 
Romke
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 9:00 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hi James,

With a budget of $1e12, I would like to ask for a database of fully ab initio 
QM simulations of proteins and systems of interest. I'd love to see equilibrium 
and non-equilibrium simulation, e.g. for photosystems I/II actually absorbing 
photons and responding thereto. I'd like to see actual enzyme catalysis happen. 
And understand when and where aromatic residues really shuffle around 
electrons.  How much we have missed by pretending that quantum phenomena are 
unimportant? We would also have some training data for accurate neural 
forcefields, instead of replicating the biases of existing forcefields. Would a 
trillion dollars do, including covering the renewable energy to offset the 
computing carbon footprint?

For only $5e8, recrystallizing the entire PDB is just a rounding error on the 
budget and obviously worth doing. I'd like to think that X-ray crystallography 
is a powerful technique. It's rather depressing to think that crystallization 
itself, rather than the phase problem or X-ray sources, is the biggest 
practical bottleneck to its use. 

My two cents,
Doeke


-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Pete Dunten
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:49 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

The obvious project worthy of such funding is crystallization in ultra low 
gravity.  Perfectly formed crystals are priceless and the basis for advances in 
structural biology.  Crystal growth on the ISS, in orbit 254 miles above the 
Earth, is considered growth in microgravity.  Now consider the Moon, at 238,855 
miles from Earth, where Earth's gravity, obeying the inverse square law, is 
much weaker.  Moving facilities from one massive body (the Earth) to another 
with its own gravity (the Moon), at great expense, may not seem a good idea at 
first blush.  Now consider tunneling to the center of the Moon, whose core is 
solid, and excavating a hollow, spherical cavity to house the crystallization 
lab.  One elegantly escapes the influence of lunar gravity.

Space X and the Boring Company are one step ahead of us, of course, and have 
already begun this 'PicoGrav' program on the dark side of the moon.  This note 
is meant to save everyone the trouble of putting together an application.  
History has shown that competing against industry is a losing strategy - the 
Human Genome Project being a fine example.  Stay tuned for updates from the 
astro-engineer on the Moon in charge of the project, Major Tom.  If you're 
lucky, you can enjoy a Space X resupply mission flyby of the ISS on its way to 
the Moon on one of the ISS webcams at 
-https://www.webcamtaxi.com/en/space/earth-live-cam1.html

Just the messanger, Pete



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Hekstra, Doeke Romke]

Hi James,

With a budget of $1e12, I would like to ask for a database of fully ab initio 
QM simulations of proteins and systems of interest. I'd love to see equilibrium 
and non-equilibrium simulation, e.g. for photosystems I/II actually absorbing 
photons and responding thereto. I'd like to see actual enzyme catalysis happen. 
And understand when and where aromatic residues really shuffle around 
electrons.  How much we have missed by pretending that quantum phenomena are 
unimportant? We would also have some training data for accurate neural 
forcefields, instead of replicating the biases of existing forcefields. Would a 
trillion dollars do, including covering the renewable energy to offset the 
computing carbon footprint?

For only $5e8, recrystallizing the entire PDB is just a rounding error on the 
budget and obviously worth doing. I'd like to think that X-ray crystallography 
is a powerful technique. It's rather depressing to think that crystallization 
itself, rather than the phase problem or X-ray sources, is the biggest 
practical bottleneck to its use. 

My two cents,
Doeke


-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Pete Dunten
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 3:49 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

The obvious project worthy of such funding is crystallization in ultra low 
gravity.  Perfectly formed crystals are priceless and the basis for advances in 
structural biology.  Crystal growth on the ISS, in orbit 254 miles above the 
Earth, is considered growth in microgravity.  Now consider the Moon, at 238,855 
miles from Earth, where Earth's gravity, obeying the inverse square law, is 
much weaker.  Moving facilities from one massive body (the Earth) to another 
with its own gravity (the Moon), at great expense, may not seem a good idea at 
first blush.  Now consider tunneling to the center of the Moon, whose core is 
solid, and excavating a hollow, spherical cavity to house the crystallization 
lab.  One elegantly escapes the influence of lunar gravity.

Space X and the Boring Company are one step ahead of us, of course, and have 
already begun this 'PicoGrav' program on the dark side of the moon.  This note 
is meant to save everyone the trouble of putting together an application.  
History has shown that competing against industry is a losing strategy - the 
Human Genome Project being a fine example.  Stay tuned for updates from the 
astro-engineer on the Moon in charge of the project, Major Tom.  If you're 
lucky, you can enjoy a Space X resupply mission flyby of the ISS on its way to 
the Moon on one of the ISS webcams at 
-https://www.webcamtaxi.com/en/space/earth-live-cam1.html

Just the messanger, Pete



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Pete Dunten]

The obvious project worthy of such funding is crystallization in ultra low 
gravity.  Perfectly formed crystals are priceless and the basis for advances in 
structural biology.  Crystal growth on the ISS, in orbit 254 miles above the 
Earth, is considered growth in microgravity.  Now consider the Moon, at 238,855 
miles from Earth, where Earth's gravity, obeying the inverse square law, is 
much weaker.  Moving facilities from one massive body (the Earth) to another 
with its own gravity (the Moon), at great expense, may not seem a good idea at 
first blush.  Now consider tunneling to the center of the Moon, whose core is 
solid, and excavating a hollow, spherical cavity to house the crystallization 
lab.  One elegantly escapes the influence of lunar gravity.

Space X and the Boring Company are one step ahead of us, of course, and have 
already begun this 'PicoGrav' program on the dark side of the moon.  This note 
is meant to save everyone the trouble of putting together an application.  
History has shown that competing against industry is a losing strategy - the 
Human Genome Project being a fine example.  Stay tuned for updates from the 
astro-engineer on the Moon in charge of the project, Major Tom.  If you're 
lucky, you can enjoy a Space X resupply mission flyby of the ISS on its way to 
the Moon on one of the ISS webcams at 
-https://www.webcamtaxi.com/en/space/earth-live-cam1.html

Just the messanger, Pete



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Bernhard Rupp]

> what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for your science? 

(a) Embezzle most of and (b) do sociologically relevant research with the rest, 
like
https://www.ruppweb.org/Garland/PICD.html

Best, BR
-
Bernhard Rupp 
k.k. Hofkristallamt
001 (925) 209-7429
+43 (676) 571-0536
b...@ruppweb.org
hofkristall...@gmail.com
http://www.hofkristallamt.org/ 
-
Hope is not a strategy - hope is a mistake.
-



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[David A Case]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024, James Holton wrote:


My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for 
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of 
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural 
science, so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!


One idea: we should start by running a large language model on the complete
archive of Holton posts to the CCP4BB list.

...dave case



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[James Holton]

Of course, Frank!  No amount is too small if it makes a difference in 
the world.


Can you please provide a budget justification?


On 4/1/2024 1:22 AM, Frank Von Delft wrote:
Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi 
schememarket.  Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?


Sent from tiny silly touch screen

*From:* James Holton 
*Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
scientific funding!

My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science,
so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!

I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated
$100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
(adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning
and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost
about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
$10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs,
grad students, techs. Everybody.

I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I
like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus
on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at
least for today, let's give it a try!

Looking forward to your applications,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a 
mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are 
available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/


*From:* James Holton 
*Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
to be working. Pred

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Nukri Sanishvili]

Hi James,
The elevator pitch has to be 90 degrees, no? Otherwise it would travel
horizontally as well.
Or, perhaps, we should petition these types of elevators to be added to
building codes for large, multi-entrance buildings?
Best,
Nukri

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 10:08 AM James Holton  wrote:

> For you, Eleanor? Of course!  I look forward to it.
>
> But do you have an "elevator pitch"?
>
> I feel that a lively exchange of short messages conveys ideas much more
> efficiently and effectively than an annual exchange of hyper-dense
> documents.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
> On 4/1/2024 6:27 AM, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
>
> It. Will probably take me  a. Full year to draft the. Application - is
> that too slow?
>
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 09:22, Frank Von Delft <
> bcb385fe5582-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi scheme
>> market.  Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?
>>
>> Sent from tiny silly touch screen
>> --
>> *From:* James Holton 
>> *Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
>> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> *Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications
>>
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
>> formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
>> numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
>> single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
>> indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
>> hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
>> proven that there is not a more efficient way.
>>
>> It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
>> nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
>> fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
>> series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
>> efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
>> There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
>> to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
>> April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
>> certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
>> discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
>> scientific funding!
>>
>> My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
>> your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
>> other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science,
>> so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!
>>
>> I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
>> large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated
>> $100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
>> (adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning
>> and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost
>> about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
>> crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
>> sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
>> might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
>> buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
>> power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
>> $10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
>> category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs,
>> grad students, techs. Everybody.
>>
>> I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I
>> like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
>> that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
>> science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
>> overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus
>> on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at
>> least for today, let's give it a try!
>>
>> Looking forward to your applications,
>>
>> -James Holton
>> MAD Scientist
>>
>> 
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>>
>> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a
>> mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are
>> available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
>> --
>> *From:* James Holton 
>> *Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
>> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> *Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications
>>
>> Hey Everyone,
>>
>> It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
>> formal mathematical proof t

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[James Holton]

I'm sorry Phil, but your application has been administratively rejected 
because it did not conform to the bioscience-only stipulation that was 
clearly stated in the RFA.


We look forward to an improved version of your proposal in the future, 
and please try to read the instructions more carefully next time.


Best of luck,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist

On 4/1/2024 8:03 AM, Phil Jeffrey wrote:

:: I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers.

Presumably via the Bankman-Fried algorithm

Phil

On 4/1/24 3:01 AM, James Holton wrote:

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never 
been a formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of 
very large numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than 
simply trying every single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, 
encryption keys and indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge 
upon how computationally hard it is to find these large prime 
factors. And yet, no one has ever proven that there is not a more 
efficient way.



[snip]






To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[James Holton]

For you, Eleanor? Of course!  I look forward to it.

But do you have an "elevator pitch"?

I feel that a lively exchange of short messages conveys ideas much more 
efficiently and effectively than an annual exchange of hyper-dense 
documents.


Cheers,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist

On 4/1/2024 6:27 AM, Eleanor Dodson wrote:
It. Will probably take me  a. Full year to draft the. Application - is 
that too slow?


On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 09:22, Frank Von Delft 
 wrote:


Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi
schememarket.  Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?

Sent from tiny silly touch screen

*From:* James Holton 
*Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never
been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very
large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying
every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how
computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has
ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one
in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it
seems
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may
have
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
scientific funding!

My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural
science,
so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!

I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and
unrelated
$100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
(adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from
cloning
and expression to crystallization and structure solution would
only cost
about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
$10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but
postdocs,
grad students, techs. Everybody.

I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them.
And, I
like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to
focus
on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale,
but, at
least for today, let's give it a try!

Looking forward to your applications,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1


This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB
, a mailing list hosted by
www.jiscmail.ac.uk , terms & conditions
are available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

*From:* James Holton 
*Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never
been a
formal mathematica

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Phil Jeffrey]

:: I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers.

Presumably via the Bankman-Fried algorithm

Phil

On 4/1/24 3:01 AM, James Holton wrote:

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a 
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large 
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every 
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and 
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally 
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever 
proven that there is not a more efficient way.



[snip]



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Eleanor Dodson]

It. Will probably take me  a. Full year to draft the. Application - is that
too slow?

On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 09:22, Frank Von Delft <
bcb385fe5582-dmarc-requ...@jiscmail.ac.uk> wrote:

> Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi scheme
> market.  Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?
>
> Sent from tiny silly touch screen
> --
> *From:* James Holton 
> *Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> *Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications
>
> Hey Everyone,
>
> It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
> formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
> numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
> single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
> indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
> hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
> proven that there is not a more efficient way.
>
> It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
> nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
> fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
> series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
> efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
> There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
> to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
> April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
> certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
> discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
> scientific funding!
>
> My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
> your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
> other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science,
> so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!
>
> I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
> large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated
> $100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
> (adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning
> and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost
> about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
> crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
> sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
> might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
> buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
> power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
> $10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
> category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs,
> grad students, techs. Everybody.
>
> I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I
> like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
> that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
> science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
> overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus
> on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at
> least for today, let's give it a try!
>
> Looking forward to your applications,
>
> -James Holton
> MAD Scientist
>
> 
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
>
> This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a
> mailing list hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are
> available at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/
> --
> *From:* James Holton 
> *Sent:* Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
> *To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> *Subject:* [ccp4bb] request for applications
>
> Hey Everyone,
>
> It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
> formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
> numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
> single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
> indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
> hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
> proven that there is not a more efficient way.
>
> It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
> nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
> fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
> series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
> efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at t

Re: [ccp4bb] request for applications

[Frank Von Delft]

Oh dear, your prime number oversupply crashed the crypto Ponzi scheme market.  
Will you accept $10e2 proposals now?

Sent from tiny silly touch screen

From: James Holton 
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
scientific funding!

My question for the BB is: what would YOU do if you had $1e12 USD for
your science? No non-scientific proposals please. There are plenty of
other forums for those.  This BB is about biological structural science,
so please stay on-topic.  OK?  And now: suggestions!

I am particularly interested in projects that can only be done with a
large, cooperative $1e12 USD, but not by 10e6 independent and unrelated
$100e3 projects. The Apollo moon missions, for example cost $300e9
(adjusted USD).  On a smaller scale, re-doing the whole PDB from cloning
and expression to crystallization and structure solution would only cost
about $500e6 USD. That would finally give us a good database of
crystallization conditions for training an AI to tell you, given a
sequence, what the crystallization conditions (if any) will be. That
might take a lot of computing power, but there is plenty left over to
buy 10 zettaflops of computing power (and the solar panels needed to
power it). Or, if we really want to just divide it up, that would be
$10e6 for each of the ~1e5 people on this planet who fit into the
category of "biological scientist". That's not just PIs, but postdocs,
grad students, techs. Everybody.

I'm sure this will solve a lot of problems, but not all of them. And, I
like to get ahead of things. So, what are the non-financial problems
that will remain?  I think these are the most important problems in
science: the intellectual and technological hurdles that money can't
overcome.  I'm hoping this will be an opportunity for all of us to focus
on those.  I know we're all not used to thinking on this scale, but, at
least for today, let's give it a try!

Looking forward to your applications,

-James Holton
MAD Scientist



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/WA-JISC.exe?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1

This message was issued to members of www.jiscmail.ac.uk/CCP4BB, a mailing list 
hosted by www.jiscmail.ac.uk, terms & conditions are available at 
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/

From: James Holton 
Sent: Monday, 1 April 2024 08:01
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] request for applications

Hey Everyone,

It may sound like an incredibly boring thing that there has never been a
formal mathematical proof that finding the prime factors of very large
numbers doesn't have a more efficient algorithm than simply trying every
single one of them. Nevertheless, to this day, encryption keys and
indeed blockchain-based cryptocurrencies hinge upon how computationally
hard it is to find these large prime factors. And yet, no one has ever
proven that there is not a more efficient way.

It occurred to me recently that cryptocurrencies (blockchains) are
nothing more than a sequence of numbers, and Large Language Models
fundamentally take a sequence of "words" and predict the next one in the
series. So, they seem naturally suited to the task of finding a more
efficient way. I spent some of my free time trying my hand at this.
There were some twists and turns along the way, but as of today it seems
to be working. Predictions are now coming pretty fast. By the end of
April 1, I expect to have ~ $1e12 USD on current ledgers. This may have
certain socioeconomic ramifications, but that is not what I want to
discuss here. What I want to discuss is how to use this new source of
scientific fun