From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!mimsy!harwo Mon Dec  9 10:47:30 EST 1991
Article 1807 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!mimsy!harwo
od
>From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Physical limits when programming neurons and minds
Message-ID: <44011@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 91 19:12:45 GMT
References: <1991Nov29.164139.1588@morrow.stanford.edu> <57850@netnews.upenn.edu> <445@trwacs.UUCP>
Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Lines: 14

In article <445@trwacs.UUCP> erwin@trwacs.UUCP (Harry Erwin) writes:
>I believe that Schroedinger's equation has not been solved for many-body
>systems with reasonably large numbers of charged particles (somewhere
>around 4). 
\\\\\\\\\\\\
	I recall that 17 years ago, or therabouts (to show how out-of-date
I am) - it took hundreds of hours of computing by the current state-of-
the-art approximate calculation on a CDC Cyber (now extinct species with
long words) for solution of Schroedinger's equation for even the simplest 
stripped atoms. This was the first "successful" calculation, and nobody 
was sure whether it was correct.
	Times have surely changed if "drug companies make millions"
out of this sort of thing now. (Do their computers suffer side-effects of
these calculations?)


