>>14003404Comp chem is based. I make new enhanced sampling algorithms for molecular dynamics. Fun stuff man.
>>14004160Lol that's funny but its not real computational physics/chemistry, which actually predicts things. Biological phenomena and material properties are predicted from my methods, and it's used to engineer new medicine and materials.
>>14004298I think he's talking about pure numerical methods researchers, usually in academia.
>>14004497>>14004575Yes I am a code monkey compared to "real" computer scientists and mathematicians. Computational chemists/physicists and engineers need to code monkey sometimes but we enjoy it - ultimately we're investigating/designing physical phenomena and sometimes monkeying out on code gets it done. Just pop in some headphones, go full monkey, and realize the end result will be awesome. It's fun.
I am very thankful for the pure comp sci and math people who developed things I use, and make my job possible.
Sometimes I develop libraries as well, otherwise my methods wouldn't get used by others.
>this is computer engineeringYes, I am about 50/50 scientist/engineer and I'm very proud of that.
>When the latest math gets involved, thats when shit gets real>we're not talking about real shit hereThen I don't wanna be "real" by your definition.
I care about discovering fundamental mechanisms of physical/chemical phenomena - how do certain molecules/proteins move/interact? How do certain phase transitions occur? What influences stability of solids/fluids/plasmas? This is the science.
I also care about designing better materials/systems to solve problems like cancer, better molecules, better materials, energy, etc. This is the engineering.
These things are best investigated/designed via advanced simulations.
If the "latest" math coming out of academia could help, I'll gladly use it.
I wanna reiterate that I'm very thankful for the pure math and comp sci people. I stand on their shoulders every day when doing my work.
