PDA

View Full Version : Codimensional geometric toplology



uncommonsense
2010-May-14, 11:54 PM
Mod: Please edit "codementional" to "Codimensional". Thank you.


Anybody know of any published work, or have any personal knowledge, on comparative analysis between codementional geometric topology - and - tranfer of information via the genetic code; specifically, the anomalous 5 to 3 transfer convention resulting in symetry and helix formation?

I only ask after I have spent considerable time looking myself, and since I know so little about each field, I was hoping someone who knows more will know where to look, as there are some striking similarities.

Thank you.

01101001
2010-May-15, 12:46 AM
[...] codementional [...]

Google never heard of it -- except in some forum called BAUT.

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-15, 01:33 AM
Anybody know of any published work, or have any personal knowledge, on comparative analysis between codementional geometric topology - and - tranfer of information via the genetic code; specifically, the anomalous 5 to 3 transfer convention resulting in symetry and helix formation?

I only ask after I have spent considerable time looking myself, and since I know so little about each field, I was hoping someone who knows more will know where to look, as there are some striking similarities.

Thank you.

I assume you mean "codimensional" instead of what you wrote (which sounds like a psychiatric term). :)

If so, try doing a search based on the corrected spelling, and you might turn up quite a bit.

DrRocket
2010-May-15, 05:06 AM
Anybody know of any published work, or have any personal knowledge, on comparative analysis between codementional geometric topology - and - tranfer of information via the genetic code; specifically, the anomalous 5 to 3 transfer convention resulting in symetry and helix formation?

I only ask after I have spent considerable time looking myself, and since I know so little about each field, I was hoping someone who knows more will know where to look, as there are some striking similarities.

Thank you.

That doesn't make sense.

Geometric topology is a synonym for topology of manifolds, which is most of topology these days. It may also conote differential topology.

Codimension is a term used in conjunction with a subpace of a vector space or a submanifold of a manifold and is the difference between the dimension of the larger space and the subspace or dimension of the manifold and submanifold. Thus the codimension of a 2-dimensional space embedded in a 5-dimensional space is 3.

What, if anything, that has to do with transfer of information via the genetic code seems rather a mystery.

uncommonsense
2010-May-18, 06:13 PM
That doesn't make sense.

Geometric topology is a synonym for topology of manifolds, which is most of topology these days. It may also conote differential topology.

Codimension is a term used in conjunction with a subpace of a vector space or a submanifold of a manifold and is the difference between the dimension of the larger space and the subspace or dimension of the manifold and submanifold. Thus the codimension of a 2-dimensional space embedded in a 5-dimensional space is 3.

What, if anything, that has to do with transfer of information via the genetic code seems rather a mystery.

From these links I pulled the following info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Transfer_of_information_via_the_genet ic_code

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery_theory




"The backbone of the DNA strand is made from alternating phosphate and sugar residues.[10] The sugar in DNA is 2-deoxyribose, which is a pentose (five-carbon) sugar. The sugars are joined together by phosphate groups that form phosphodiester bonds between the third and fifth carbon atoms of adjacent sugar rings. These asymmetric bonds mean a strand of DNA has a direction. In a double helix the direction of the nucleotides in one strand is opposite to their direction in the other strand: the strands are antiparallel. The asymmetric ends of DNA strands are called the 5′ (five prime) and 3′ (three prime) ends, with the 5' end having a terminal phosphate group and the 3' end a terminal hydroxyl group. One major difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar, with the 2-deoxyribose in DNA being replaced by the alternative pentose sugar ribose in RNA."

Bold added.

01101001
2010-May-18, 06:23 PM
Why did you bold what you bolded? Does that help make a connection somehow?

And, speaking of connections, what's the space and astronomy connection -- aside from astronomers replicating via DNA?

DrRocket
2010-May-18, 07:38 PM
From these links I pulled the following info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Transfer_of_information_via_the_genet ic_code

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery_theory




"The backbone of the DNA strand is made from alternating phosphate and sugar residues.[10] The sugar in DNA is 2-deoxyribose, which is a pentose (five-carbon) sugar. The sugars are joined together by phosphate groups that form phosphodiester bonds between the third and fifth carbon atoms of adjacent sugar rings. These asymmetric bonds mean a strand of DNA has a direction. In a double helix the direction of the nucleotides in one strand is opposite to their direction in the other strand: the strands are antiparallel. The asymmetric ends of DNA strands are called the 5′ (five prime) and 3′ (three prime) ends, with the 5' end having a terminal phosphate group and the 3' end a terminal hydroxyl group. One major difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar, with the 2-deoxyribose in DNA being replaced by the alternative pentose sugar ribose in RNA."

Bold added.

You have provided links to two articles on DNA and one involving surgery on manifolds. Do you think there is some sort of connection ? If so, what ?

Why did you focus on surgery ? Did you know that there is also a method for adding handles called plumbing ?

Is there a question in here somewhere ?

uncommonsense
2010-May-18, 07:44 PM
Why did you bold what you bolded? Does that help make a connection somehow?

And, speaking of connections, what's the space and astronomy connection -- aside from astronomers replicating via DNA?

I suppose I bolded because I question a relation to: the theory of high dimensional manifolds, which is generally stated as starting in dimension 5 and above, can alternatively be said to start in codimension 3 (from wiki geometric topology).

Also surgery theory seems to share some commonalities.

As to relation to "space and astronomy", I suppose the relation more is to "mathematical spaces / surfaces" and so perhaps some opinions would be that such inquiry belongs elsewhere.

I simply suspected a relation and there may be absolutely no such relation. That's why I am asking.

Swift
2010-May-19, 01:07 PM
I corrected the title as requested by the OP (in the future, it is better to Report your own post, to make sure a mod sees your request - we don't read every thread).

I also moved this to Science & Technology, since it seems more of a discussion, rather than a straight forward Question & Answer, and is only marginally related to Space.

John Jaksich
2010-May-19, 04:30 PM
uncommonsense,

You might try the NIH Genetic Database and their respective mirrors in Europe and Japan--->

Here is the link for NIH: NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/index.html)

Please let me know if it works?

uncommonsense
2010-May-19, 05:23 PM
That doesn't make sense.

Geometric topology is a synonym for topology of manifolds, which is most of topology these days. It may also conote differential topology.

Codimension is a term used in conjunction with a subpace of a vector space or a submanifold of a manifold and is the difference between the dimension of the larger space and the subspace or dimension of the manifold and submanifold. Thus the codimension of a 2-dimensional space embedded in a 5-dimensional space is 3.

What, if anything, that has to do with transfer of information via the genetic code seems rather a mystery.

Hey Dr. I have a great deal of patience and admiration for the more learned members on this forum. But I have little patience for ignorant flippant cocky resonses that ignore the OP. I was asking a question. You know a lot and I am sure your degrees were well earned. You have made sure everyone knows that you got a big brain. But socially and communication wise, you got some retardations that quite frankly I have become disgusted with. I would love to share your learned knowledge - but unfortunately, to do so requires dealing with your egotistic low self esteem flunky deliveries.

Please feel free to avoid any posts or questions I present from here on out. I am a self proclaimed amature. You are a self proclaimed know it all. You have much to offer within this forum and I don't want to rob other members of your vast knowledge base. But stay the heck away from me because I find your pompous and shallow interpretations of many, including mine, OPs are better studied under modern electric rather than candle light .

I advise you not to respond to this post. Why? because as deficient as I am in learned math and science, I am equally honed at logic and argumentative combat. I wish to stay here as a member of BAUT, as I wish you the same. But, Back the hell off or I will stand alone as a remaining member between us.

P.S. I expect infractions from mods and am willing to pay the small price for speaking the truth.

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-19, 05:53 PM
From these links I pulled the following info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Transfer_of_information_via_the_genet ic_code

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#Properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery_theory




"The backbone of the DNA strand is made from alternating phosphate and sugar residues.[10] The sugar in DNA is 2-deoxyribose, which is a pentose (five-carbon) sugar. The sugars are joined together by phosphate groups that form phosphodiester bonds between the third and fifth carbon atoms of adjacent sugar rings. These asymmetric bonds mean a strand of DNA has a direction. In a double helix the direction of the nucleotides in one strand is opposite to their direction in the other strand: the strands are antiparallel. The asymmetric ends of DNA strands are called the 5′ (five prime) and 3′ (three prime) ends, with the 5' end having a terminal phosphate group and the 3' end a terminal hydroxyl group. One major difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar, with the 2-deoxyribose in DNA being replaced by the alternative pentose sugar ribose in RNA."

Bold added.

Still makes no sense to me what you're after. There's no question that stereochemistry is extremely important (not just for DNA). The famous "protein folding problem" is an acknowledgment of the fundamental importance of the shape of molecules. And certainly that importance includes the shape-dependent behavior of molecules. Given that information transfer (via chemical reactions) is shape-dependent, that's about all the linkage I can see. But I am still in the dark about what you are trying to say. That darkness is only amplified by the particular bolded parts in the quote you provided above. You've got me completely stumped.

Strange
2010-May-19, 06:07 PM
But I am still in the dark about what you are trying to say.

Ditto. Is this some higher-level numerology?

Geo Kaplan
2010-May-19, 06:25 PM
Ditto. Is this some higher-level numerology?

Could be, but I truly have no idea what the OP is talking about. Hopefully, he'll provide an explanation we can understand.

Swift
2010-May-19, 07:10 PM
P.S. I expect infractions from mods and am willing to pay the small price for speaking the truth.
Such will be dealt with in private, but I do not want to see any further posts like that.

John Jaksich
2010-May-19, 07:52 PM
uncommonsense,

When I originally saw your post ---> It seemed to jar a few of memory cells where I recalled hearing of Mathematical Graph Theory being applied to Chemical Reactivity---> I wish I had spoken prior to the "moderator's" intervention?

Here is a link to a Springer-Verlag-->
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1jquvt1h197433m1/

but the book and possible download of a chapter or two . . . of info . . . but it is dated and expensive : 1973 There are a list of references given that are fairly up-to-date (?)::

I will post it in a next post.

DrRocket
2010-May-19, 07:54 PM
Hey Dr. I have a great deal of patience and admiration for the more learned members on this forum. But I have little patience for ignorant flippant cocky resonses that ignore the OP. I was asking a question. You know a lot and I am sure your degrees were well earned. You have made sure everyone knows that you got a big brain. But socially and communication wise, you got some retardations that quite frankly I have become disgusted with. I would love to share your learned knowledge - but unfortunately, to do so requires dealing with your egotistic low self esteem flunky deliveries.

Please feel free to avoid any posts or questions I present from here on out. I am a self proclaimed amature. You are a self proclaimed know it all. You have much to offer within this forum and I don't want to rob other members of your vast knowledge base. But stay the heck away from me because I find your pompous and shallow interpretations of many, including mine, OPs are better studied under modern electric rather than candle light .

I advise you not to respond to this post. Why? because as deficient as I am in learned math and science, I am equally honed at logic and argumentative combat. I wish to stay here as a member of BAUT, as I wish you the same. But, Back the hell off or I will stand alone as a remaining member between us.

P.S. I expect infractions from mods and am willing to pay the small price for speaking the truth.

If you read the response you find that I did respond to your question. I gave you definitions for the areas about which you raised questions. I gave examples to illustrate those definitions.

The rest is your problem.

John Jaksich
2010-May-19, 08:01 PM
Chauvin, Remi (2010) The chemical roots of the matching polynomial. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 12(20)

Gutman, Ivan (2002) The Relation between the Eigenvalue Sum and the Topological Index Z Revisited. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 75(8)


Ilić, P. (1982) The topology and the aromaticity of coumarins. Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry 19(3)

Bonchev, D. (1977) Information theory, distance matrix, and molecular branching. The Journal of Chemical Physics 67(10)

Mihalić, Zlatko (1992) The distance matrix in chemistry. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 11(1)

Trinajstić, Nenad (1988) The characteristic polynomial of a chemical graph. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 2(3)

Cvetković, Dragoš (1974) Graph theory and molecular orbitals. Theoretica Chimica Acta 34(2)

King, R. B. (1991) An algorithm for calculating the roots of a general quintic equation from its coefficients. Journal of Mathematical Physics 32(4)

Gutman, Ivan (1977) A class of approximate topological formulas for total π-electron energy. The Journal of Chemical Physics 66(4)

King, R. B. (1986) Chemical applications of topology and group theory. Theoretica Chimica Acta 69(1)

uncommonsense
2010-May-20, 02:39 PM
Chauvin, Remi (2010) The chemical roots of the matching polynomial. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 12(20)

Gutman, Ivan (2002) The Relation between the Eigenvalue Sum and the Topological Index Z Revisited. Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 75(8)


Ilić, P. (1982) The topology and the aromaticity of coumarins. Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry 19(3)

Bonchev, D. (1977) Information theory, distance matrix, and molecular branching. The Journal of Chemical Physics 67(10)

Mihalić, Zlatko (1992) The distance matrix in chemistry. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 11(1)

Trinajstić, Nenad (1988) The characteristic polynomial of a chemical graph. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 2(3)

Cvetković, Dragoš (1974) Graph theory and molecular orbitals. Theoretica Chimica Acta 34(2)

King, R. B. (1991) An algorithm for calculating the roots of a general quintic equation from its coefficients. Journal of Mathematical Physics 32(4)

Gutman, Ivan (1977) A class of approximate topological formulas for total π-electron energy. The Journal of Chemical Physics 66(4)

King, R. B. (1986) Chemical applications of topology and group theory. Theoretica Chimica Acta 69(1)

Yes yes yes. This is good stuff. I have some reading to do.

Thank you for your open minded attention to the matter.