>on most of your statements you hope the program will solve the problem. yes, a lot of the reactions are documented... some reagents are cheap or easy- maybe even practical to make. the problem is that the program isn't a "reality" program. it goes based on what has worked, not on experience of what will work.
What I thought was that a program could maybe help me get a better "overview" in designing a new synthesis better than I could alone, even if I had a decent understanding of chemistry.
I mean, there are thousands of potential reactions, millions of specific reactions reported in the literature, and an endless number of ways to get from any compound to any other compound.
A method of testing out a huge number of possibilities in a short time does not seem too inappropriate to me in such a circumstance, and a program can answer any question which can be put into a logical form, logical in the mathematical sense.
If someone who was really good at both programming and chemistry got their act together and wrote a public domain program of this nature, beautiful possibilities spring to my mind.
Isn't that how a lot of research is done in "reality", anyway? Just testing elaborations on what has already been tested before? I mean, chemistry doesn't seem to be a very exact science yet.
> if you've got the time to mess with that stuff- go ahead, aurelius will give you complete support in your endevour- however, likelyhood of success is not high.
Thanks for your support. And I'd love for someone to prove you wrong.