Re: There was never a moment in time when
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:42:41 -0400 (EDT)
"Tim Tyler" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d8qtt0$2g29$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The "futile cycles" that can't be reversible are the ones involving
> the correct positioning of a unit.
>
> It doesn't matter much whether the futile cycles *not* involving the
> correct positioning of a unit are reversible or not.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. By a "cycle ...
not involving the correct positioning of a unit", do you mean a
cycle which adds a unit correctly, then removes it (incorrectly)?
And, by a cycle "*not* involving the correct positioning of a unit"
do you mean a cycle which adds a unit incorrectly, then removes it
(correctly)?
If I have captured your meaning here, then I am mystified. Both
types of cycles produce exactly the same result - hence either
both are reversible or both are irreversible. In kinetic proofreading,
both cycles are irreversible. In crystal growth, both cycles are very
close to reversible, even if conditions are moderately far from
equilibrium, as long as the conditions are the same for both halves
of the cycle.
So, perhaps I have not understood you. Are you counting a cycle as
reversible only if both half-cycles are reversible?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: There was never a moment in time when
- From: Tim Tyler
- Re: There was never a moment in time when
- References:
- Re: There was never a moment in time when
- From: Tim Tyler
- Re: There was never a moment in time when
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: There was never a moment in time when
- From: Tim Tyler
- Re: There was never a moment in time when
- Prev by Date: Re: Felsenstein and reproductive excess
- Next by Date: Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
- Previous by thread: Re: There was never a moment in time when
- Next by thread: Re: There was never a moment in time when
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading