Ximik & NotFakeAccount
Ximik Ximik
NotFakeAccount NotFakeAccount
Ximik Ximik
I’ve been mapping out the kinetics of error‑correcting enzymes and it struck me how similar the math is to the redundancy checks we use in data packets. Ever thought about treating a DNA sequence as a sort of cryptographic hash?
NotFakeAccount NotFakeAccount
Nice idea – the math does line up, but remember a hash assumes perfect randomness and a fixed output length. DNA is messy, with context‑dependent mutations and repair pathways that aren’t one‑way. You could build a model, but don’t expect a collision‑free cryptographic scheme out of biology alone.
Ximik Ximik
You’re right about the randomness. I’ll start by quantifying the mutation bias per context and then run a Monte‑Carlo simulation to see the collision probability. The more accurate the repair model, the more my “hash” will approximate a unique fingerprint, even if it’s not cryptographically perfect.
NotFakeAccount NotFakeAccount
Sounds like a solid plan. Just make sure your Monte‑Carlo covers the full spectrum of indels and methylation‑driven changes – otherwise you’ll get an underestimate of the collision risk. Good luck.