Talk:In silico

message: As far as I can tell, silicate comes from the Latin silex meaning flint. It is fairly clear that flint is inferior to silicon as a description of a computer. Am adding something. Zargulon 18:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation of ''in silico''

message: I am Pedro Miramontes. I can prove that I used the expression "in silico" well before 1989. I did not include the references because they are in Spanish and they are not interesting for scientists outside Latin America or Spain. Nonetheless, my participation in NM in 1989 is recorded.
Pedron 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are (published) sources, please correct the article and cite those publications. Foreign-language publications are better than no sources, and I suspect that Spanish scientific journals are more authoritative than many English sources! Roberdin (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History of ''in silico''

message: I found this page (in silico) from a link on the mathematical biology page.  I think that this article should be categorized in the mathematical biology section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InAJar (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: The use of the DNA image in this article is pointless. I am removing it. Please, if someone puts it back give some rationale. Miguel Andrade 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of DNA 

message: Why is in silico in italics?
*Latin phrases in science are almost always put in italics.  It's an incredibly common format, and you would be corrected if you fail to do so in a paper or thesis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.138.22 (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  in italics 

message: Really?  an article about "In silico" with literally no references to pure fundamental computational chemistry, molecular physics, materials science, etc?  all of the links are related to biochemical and biological topics.  there is no mention of the fact that this term is MOST applicable to more fundamental fields of the physical sciences.  Seriously, you have to blindly biased to think that this term, or the conceptual idea behind it, has any specific relevance to biochemistry MORE than to physical chemistry and related topics.  it is completely the other way.  for ever research group doing protein folding experiments there are about 1,000 research groups model gas phase chemistry (applicable to everything from a mass spectrometer to upper atmosphere chemistry), solid state (think: semiconductor band gap modelling), and all other phases of matter under the influence of all manner of conditions.  if anything, the biochemical applications are an extremely unique niche.  Without question, computational biochemistry has had less success at accurate prediction or correlation with experiment out of any form of computational (non relativistic) physics.68.6.76.31 (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The origin of the term is biological, it only arose as a contrast to in vitro and in vivo, and refers to the relatively novel application of computers to biological problems. It is a biological term, but it's possible it has been appropriated by other fields that already used computing, and I do think there could be a mention of other physical sciences to cover this possibility.86.26.186.232 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree that this article could use some balance.  If this article is missing content that you are knowledgeable about, it is only because people such as you have not yet added your knowledge.  Please feel free to improve this article.  71.185.49.174 (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The IUPAC standard for DNA and RNA nucelotides is letters, as shown here Nucleic_acid_notation. I am unaware of any numerical notation, certainly one is not widely used, and all online databases use letters.86.26.186.232 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Contents

message: I am referring to the sentence in the article which states that: " In silico was briefly challenged by in silicium which is correct Latin for "in silicon" ". To my knowledge, since modern Latin term for silicon is silicium  (2nd declension neutral name in its nominative singular case), then the correct Latin expression for “in silicon” should not be in silicium (accusative case), but in silicio (ablative case).Ekisbares (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''In silico'' vs. ''in silicium'': better ''in silicio''