Talk:In silico: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 141.212.138.22 - "→in italics: " |
No edit summary |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*Latin phrases in science are almost always put in italics. It's an incredibly common format, and you would be corrected if you fail to do so in a paper or thesis. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.212.138.22|141.212.138.22]] ([[User talk:141.212.138.22|talk]]) 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
*Latin phrases in science are almost always put in italics. It's an incredibly common format, and you would be corrected if you fail to do so in a paper or thesis. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/141.212.138.22|141.212.138.22]] ([[User talk:141.212.138.22|talk]]) 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
==Article Contents== |
|||
Really? an article about "In silico" with literally no references to pure fundamental computational chemistry, molecular physics, materials science, etc? all of the links are related to biochemical and biological topics. there is no mention of the fact that this term is MOST applicable to more fundamental fields of the physical sciences. Seriously, you have to blindly biased to think that this term, or the conceptual idea behind it, has any specific relevance to biochemistry MORE than to physical chemistry and related topics. it is completely the other way. for ever research group doing protein folding experiments there are about 1,000 research groups model gas phase chemistry (applicable to everything from a mass spectrometer to upper atmosphere chemistry), solid state (think: semiconductor band gap modelling), and all other phases of matter under the influence of all manner of conditions. if anything, the biochemical applications are an extremely unique niche. Without question, computational biochemistry has had less success at accurate prediction or correlation with experiment out of any form of computational (non relativistic) physics.[[Special:Contributions/68.6.76.31|68.6.76.31]] ([[User talk:68.6.76.31|talk]]) 04:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:56, 31 March 2011
Derivation of in silico
As far as I can tell, silicate comes from the Latin silex meaning flint. It is fairly clear that flint is inferior to silicon as a description of a computer. Am adding something. Zargulon 18:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
No, sorry, that was wrong. Silicate also comes from silicium. Correcting ... Zargulon 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
History of in silico
I am Pedro Miramontes. I can prove that I used the expression "in silico" well before 1989. I did not include the references because they are in Spanish and they are not interesting for scientists outside Latin America or Spain. Nonetheless, my participation in NM in 1989 is recorded. Pedron 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Categorization
I found this page (in silico) from a link on the mathematical biology page. I think that this article should be categorized in the mathematical biology section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InAJar (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
Image of DNA
The use of the DNA image in this article is pointless. I am removing it. Please, if someone puts it back give some rationale. Miguel Andrade 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
in italics
Why is in silico in italics?
- Latin phrases in science are almost always put in italics. It's an incredibly common format, and you would be corrected if you fail to do so in a paper or thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.138.22 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Article Contents
Really? an article about "In silico" with literally no references to pure fundamental computational chemistry, molecular physics, materials science, etc? all of the links are related to biochemical and biological topics. there is no mention of the fact that this term is MOST applicable to more fundamental fields of the physical sciences. Seriously, you have to blindly biased to think that this term, or the conceptual idea behind it, has any specific relevance to biochemistry MORE than to physical chemistry and related topics. it is completely the other way. for ever research group doing protein folding experiments there are about 1,000 research groups model gas phase chemistry (applicable to everything from a mass spectrometer to upper atmosphere chemistry), solid state (think: semiconductor band gap modelling), and all other phases of matter under the influence of all manner of conditions. if anything, the biochemical applications are an extremely unique niche. Without question, computational biochemistry has had less success at accurate prediction or correlation with experiment out of any form of computational (non relativistic) physics.68.6.76.31 (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)