Talk:Molecular logic gate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] What's a "Logic Gate"?

An article on molecular logic gates is very problematic. Few people use this terminology to describe their work, and it is usually just the hyping of what anyone else would call a molecular switch, or molecular sensor. Examples in the literature all come from a small number of research groups, and many of them are in no way new science - more often they are just old news wrapped up in a new buzzword. I don't think the article should be removed, but it needs to include discussion of the terminology, and it needs strong links to the molecular switch and molecular sensor articles. I do think that the term "moleculator" should certainly be removed (or at least moved to a side-note), since it is very far from being an accepted term to any extent.

The real problem with "molecular logic gates" revolves around the definition of a logic gate. From the Wikipedia page, "A logic gate takes one or more logic-level inputs and produces a single logic-level output. Because the output is also a logic level, an output of one logic gate can connect to the input of one or more other logic gates. " The emphasis is mine. The ability to wire logic gates together is a conceptual foundation stone of what a logic gate is, and no published "molecular logic gate" goes any way even to give lip-service to this issue.

I hope to have time to come back and help contribute to the article at some point rather than just rant about it!

• TheBendster (talk) 23 September 2007, 13:37 (UTC)

  • Molecular logic gate is a concept frequently encountered in the literature with several active research groups. I agree it is sometimes problematic to find a title the will capture the entire field, for instance Stoddart has the phrase XOR Gate Based on a Molecular Machine in one of his articles but to me a XOR gate is still a type of logic gate. I urge you to read up on Wiki policies before removing articles or deleting valid content. The content in the article is referenced, the key phrases are encountered in the literature and it is not possible to delete content on the basis of is buzzword or not an accepted term or is hype. I do not understand the third part of your criticism: for a definition of login gate the article refers to the logic gate article. There is no point duplicating content. If you feel that the molecular logic gates as published up to now do not actually perform as logic gates your only recourse is to write a communication to one of the science journals and complain. V8rik 17:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you might be overreacting a little there. I'm sorry you got the idea I was about to delete sections or even the whole article (even though I specifically said I didn't want to!) ... I apologize if I came on too strong! You will see that I didn't touch the article at all, didn't threaten to, and I voiced my opinions here on the talk page where they rightfully belong. So relax. I can also promise you I won't be starting any edit wars, and in any case I could never win one since I don't have a lot of free time and that "undo" link is so easy to use!
    • The big problem is this (I'll try to be more clear than before). The current article lead states that "A molecular logic gate in nanotechnology is a logic gate on a molecular level." The linked logic gate articles states (correctly) that "an output of one logic gate can connect to the input of one or more other logic gates". There is the problem. There are no examples of "molecular logic gates" where this can be done, and they are therefore not logic gates. If you want a literature reference discussing this issue, then you can find one in the review: A.N. Shipway, E. Katz and I. Willner, "Molecular Memory and Processing Devices in Solution and on Surfaces", Structure and Bonding 99 (2001) 237-281.
    • What I stated in my message was that the article needs to include discussion of the terminology and links to other articles with overlapping subject matter. I still think that this is very important in order to have a good article. While it's true that an encyclopedia should reflect the literature as it is, some critical thinking is also required in order to put that in context properly for the layman.
    • I hope you can now see what I'm getting at. • TheBendster (talk) 24 September 2007, 12:28 (UTC)


  • Yes I am inpatient when it comes to deletion threats, I think they are a risk to WIki and I have devoted part of my user page to warn against it See User:V8rik#On_deletions. On the other hand I have never been involved in any edit war: I usually simply quit my involvement with an article. So there is no need to panic. I get your point of criticism and I will try to get my hands on the article you mention V8rik 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You must be very paranoid to see any "deletion threats" in my comment. Tell me, was it because I said "I don't think the article should be removed", or was it because of "I hope to ... help contribute to the article"??? • TheBendster (talk) 25 September 2007, 11:26 (UTC)


  • No, I have reread your comments and my initial comment and I will stick to it. Fortunately Wiki is very transparent and my edit history will speak for itself (no paranoia there). You come across as somebody knowledgeable in this field with serious an interesting content to offer and I am genuinely looking forward to your edits. V8rik 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)