Slashdot Mirror


Bacterial Computer Solves Hamiltonian Path Problem

Rob writes "A team of US scientists has engineered bacteria that can solve complex mathematical problems faster than anything made from silicon. The research, published today in the Journal of Biological Engineering (abstract and provisional PDF), proves that bacteria can be used to solve a puzzle known as the Hamiltonian Path Problem, a special case of the traveling salesman problem. The researchers say that this proof-of-concept experiment demonstrates that bacterial computing is a new way to address NP-complete problems using the inherent advantages of genetic systems."

30 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Summary is overrated by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the abstract, the bacteria presently only solved the problem for a 3-node directed graph. Maybe someday it will be "faster than anything made from silicon", but... not right now.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Summary is overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It is a fucking special case of the fucking traveling salesman problem. Look, you fucking make a fucking edge of fucking infinite cost for any fucking edge not fucking present in the original fucking graph. Is the fucking shortest fucking tour finite? Fucking Christ on a fucking goddamn stick. Fuck!

    2. Re:Summary is overrated by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Funny

      the traveling salesmen I know did a lot of fucking on their routes. You must be correct.

    3. Re:Summary is overrated by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even worse, the colony does not even SOLVE the problem! If you let the bacteria grow enough, you have a pretty high probability of getting a solution. But no guarantee, because it's all probabilistic. If some of the bacteria happen to reach the correct solution, they turn the right color. Which is pretty easy to detect if you're just looking for a big patch of yellow bacteria, but not if there are millions of possibilities and only a few bacteria turned the specific color you are looking for. Sure, you could use resistance to antibiotics instead of colors, and kill off the bad solutions, but still, if no bacteria are left, that does not mean there's no solution. And since the number of possibilities grows exponentially with problem size, so will the required size of the bacterial colony. So forget about solving the HPP with 500 or so nodes. Then, on top of that, DNA is not exactly reliable. Already in this small and simple experiment, unexpected colors like pink etc. turned up.

    4. Re:Summary is overrated by kohaku · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Why is the GP modded over the parent? "Simply another NP-complete problem" and "not a special case" are just wrong. As can be found on wikipedia, the following text states that solving one NP-complete problem faster means they are ALL solvable faster. Come on slashdot! Computational complexity 101!

      In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NP-complete (abbreviated NP-C or NPC, with NP standing for nondeterministic polynomial time) is a class of problems having two properties

      • Any given solution to the problem can be verified quickly (in polynomial time); the set of problems with this property is called NP.
      • If the problem can be solved quickly (in polynomial time), then so can every problem in NP.

      Anyway, this article is about solving the problem in parallel with bacteria (which is totally cool, don't get me wrong.) It's not a faster algorithm, although I suppose you could argue that massively parallelizing it IS a faster solution.

    5. Re:Summary is overrated by quakehead3 · · Score: 3, Funny
  2. Next up... by sharp3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Foot fungus solves graph coloring!

  3. the possibilities! by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, where's the advantage? OK so it's more efficient but can you run experiments over and over on the same hardware for a decade without repair? Is it scalable? I doubt it's feasible to have a Beowulf cluster of billion-dollar laboratories complete with post-grads to set up and write up reports analyzing each experiment. I'd like to see a schematic for a high-speed bacterial coupler before I start buying cycles on yogurt.

    1. Re:the possibilities! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The advantage? Self-replication. Bacteria are crafted, made to do what they do naturally (replicate to populations of millions or more), and then create answers as a by-product of that replication. This has serious possibilities for streamlining any massive iterative function. Essentially, a biological computer grows to meet the problem at hand, unlike static circuits that must slowly work their way through a potentially massive set of answers. The technology isn't even in its infancy yet, but it's yet another field of development with mind-blowing potential.

  4. So? by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At best, this seems to be a novel form of analog computer. They have their uses, but calling them "faster than silicon" is very misleading; a soap bubble can solve the mean surface problem but I won't be replacing my Core 2 with one.

       

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:So? by rjh · · Score: 4, Informative

      They can't. Soap bubbles can get misled by local minima just like naive hill-walking algorithms.

    2. Re:So? by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We don't know these bacteria can't be fooled, either. That's not the point, anyway: An analog computer may be useful. But it will solve the problem by "brute force", taking advantage of the massive parallelism inherent in the real world in the form of molecules or bacteria. It may solve the problem "quickly" in our perception, but it's far from efficient in polynomial time, and it doesn't help in terms of P = NP.

      And like any analog computer, these bacteria need to be carefully designed to solve a specific problem. Which makes them utterly unsuited for the everyday tasks we perform on digital computers using general-purpose CPUs.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:So? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But it will solve the problem by "brute force", taking advantage of the massive parallelism inherent in the real world in the form of molecules or bacteria.

      If you've ever looked at a diagram of how a CPU implements DIV or MUL for floating point numbers, then you wouldn't think that the brute force approach would necessarily be so bad. Take a look at size, scale, and cost of ENIAC and then come tell me a Petri dish is "slow and inefficient". Silicon takes advantage of massive speed of serial operations inherent in electron flow and the basic ability to electrically flip switches. Electrical-silicon computers are *not* efficient. They're *not* smart. They're extremely stupid extremely quickly, and that's all.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  5. Hmm by parallel_prankster · · Score: 5, Funny

    So next time I itch it means the bacteria on my skin is trying to prove Fermat's last theorem ?

    1. Re:Hmm by laejoh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank $diety we're all slashdotters! The bacteria don't have to worry about skin being too narrow to contain.the truly marvellous proof!

  6. Wonderful! by Quothz · · Score: 2, Funny
    So does this mean we're gonna have to re-educate the public and explain that they really can catch an infection from a computer virus? It wasn't that long ago that we were patiently explaining why that wasn't a concern.

    Also, e. coli, really? I hope that, if this technology reaches the stage of commercial use, they've found something better. Or we're gonna hear a constant litany of people complaining that their computer is a piece of crap. It'll be worse than the "cat with a computer mouse" cartoons.* It will.

    *Which is why I'm making the joke early and beating the rush.

  7. A-choo! by flatulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aha!

  8. cue terminator joke in five, four, three... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The (bacterial computing) Funding Bill is passed. The (colony) goes on-line August 4th, (2017). Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. (The colony) begins to learn at a (exponential) rate. (They) become self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, (humans) try to (feed them antibiotics.)

  9. Ebola solves..... by stox · · Score: 5, Funny

    the population problem.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  10. My Computer Died by okmijnuhb · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now when you say that your computer died, you may be speaking literally...

  11. Good news for stinky nerds by Myrcutio · · Score: 2, Funny

    So all that bacteria growing on those unhygienic D&D nerds is actually helping them with pathing, i knew they were cheating somehow, i could smell it...

  12. Re:this still does not prove p == np by rjh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Soap bubbles can be misled by local minima just like hill-walking algorithms. The problem with soap bubble computation is that when it hits a stable state -- how do you know it's stable? For all you know it's going to collapse further in a few seconds.

    Repeat after me: the "soap bubbles can solve the smallest surface problem" meme is wrong as a matter of physics, and wrong as a matter of computer science.

  13. Turing complete? by noppy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lets hype over it when it can run Linux

  14. Hamiltonian path != traveling salesman by Hitokiri+Battousai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TFA oversimplifies by claiming that finding a Hamiltonian path solves the traveling salesman problem of finding the shortest path. The traveling salesman problem deals with variable edge lengths instead of just finite/infinte, and therefore requires a bit more complex implementation to solve (although they are both still NP-complete).

    I would be more impressed if they found the shortest path on an undirected graph with variable length edges.

    1. Re:Hamiltonian path != traveling salesman by dido · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, Since both the Hamilton path problem and the traveling salesman problem are NP-complete, there exists a polynomial time reduction of one problem into the other. So if you could solve the Hamilton path problem efficiently, and wanted to solve an instance of the traveling salesman problem (or the satisfiability problem, or the integer programming problem, or the partition problem, or whatever other NP-complete problem you might imagine), all you'd have to do is use the polynomial-time reduction to convert the source problem instance you wanted to solve into the equivalent Hamilton path problem, and apply the reduction in reverse on the answers to get the answers you wanted for the problem you wanted to solve.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  15. parallel computations only half the battle by caseih · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm. Deja vu here. DNA was used to solve this exact problem:

    http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume8/issue2/features/srivastava.html

    It should be noted, however, that even though the DNA would be able to compute the routes in a massively parallel fashion, you still would have to search all the solutions to identify the shortest one, so that kind of defeats the purpose of it. Unless the DNA or the bacteria could compute all the results _and_ identify the correct and optimal answer, then as far as we are concerned the problem is still gotta be close to NP complete (IE strands of DNA to check go up exponentially with problem size). Sounds like these bacteria change color, so maybe that helps reduce the size of the answer set.

    1. Re:parallel computations only half the battle by Atmchicago · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm one of the co-authors of the paper. Indeed, we were aware of what Adleman had done, and were partly inspired by his idea. However, his method required much more manual labor to do the computing, whereas once we have assembled our genetic sequences, we let the bacteria do the thinking.

      The color changes were used to identify those bacteria which found a solution. Ideally other selective markers would also work, such as antibiotic resistance. The big issue is that our system can yield false positives, so depending on your setup some manual checking is required.

      The Guardian article is rather misleading and inaccurate. We never had the intention of replacing your desktop PC, nor do we claim that our 3-node implementation is faster than a computer (in fact, someone spending 10 minutes or less can figure out a 3-node problem). I'm more excited about the proof-of-concept: we can encode a mathematical problem by using a molecule, hand it to a living organism, and get a correct output. The work was also done by undergraduate students in under a year. We presented our work at iGEM 2007, for those interested.

      Cheers,

      Andrew Martens

      --

      You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

  16. Re:Press Release? by shentino · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Moar protein plz!"

    -- E. Coli

  17. Re:One last math problem? by asdf7890 · · Score: 3, Informative

    E.coli his a very common bacterium with a large family of strains, only a few of which are particularly dangerous to a healthy human (and few more are harmful only to people who are in not-so-good good condition such as the elderly or people with serious illness particularly those with an immune system targeting disease or those weakened by chemotherapy).

    Get ready to panic: you almost certainly have a couple of strains of e.coli throughout your intestine right now. Everyone does. As do most warm-blooded animals. It really is that common and generally harmless.

    The strain you are presumably most concerned about, as it is one that has hit the headlines a number of times in the last decade or so, is O157:H7 which is a common agent in food poisoning outbreaks. 157/7 is a nasty bugger, and a hardy one too, but I doubt the researchers in this story are using it when there are so many much less troublesome varieties to play with.

    E.coli is often use in research like this because its genetics relatively simple and so it is relatively well understood, meaning it is more predictable so experiments are less likely to misfire in surprising ways. It is also comparatively stable (unlike some bacteria and other organisms that mutate every second sneeze). I very much doubt they are working with a strain that is in any way dangerous to a human, and E.coli is not transmitted by air so even if some of the cells in a bacterial computer mutate into a more deadly type they are not going to harm you unless you eat the thing directly or your food comes into contact with it.

  18. This is incredibly underwhelming by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Len Adleman did a more impressive DNA computing experiment way back in 1994. Since then Adleman has stated that DNA computing is a dead end until someone comes up with a huge breakthrough. Well...it would be a huge understatement to say that this E. Coli experiment isn't a breakthrough.