5 ms·
Ok this is the second evolutionary computing post of today that does something cool with little or no explanation of what's going on. Stop teasing.
by andr 18y ago
Ok this is the second evolutionary computing post of today that does something cool with little or no explanation of what's going on. Stop teasing.
- icefox 18y agoThis one has docs and links to wikipedia, while being in javascript to boot http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=100521 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=100521
- iamwil 18y agoWhat do you mean? I see the GA being tested against the fitness function one at a time with the individuals in the population, with subsequent populations being the mutated and crossover'd versions of the previous generation. Are you asking about the details of how each individual is represented? How the individuals are crossed over? What the rate of extinction is?
- andr 18y agoYeah, I'm curious about the details, such as the mutation function and the phenotype. Otherwise it's a pretty straightforward GA.
- demallien 18y agoAnd I for one would love to know what the fitness function is, and what the physics being used is. And then, why not, what were the parametres that the ga was acting on...
- kirse 18y agoHow exactly is it evolutionary computing when there is a designer in the equation (programmer) who puts constraints on the algorithm by the simple act of coding it and running it on systems that he designed? This seems more like "computing to model the process of genetic adaptation". You can't label it evolutionary when there's a designer in the equation. The very definition of the evolutionary process does not allow for constraints on the process itself nor an end goal/purpose, something inherent to any system built by a programmer.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- malkia 18y agoYou can think of the programmer as the physics laws in the universe. This law, being a law, just dictates rules of what is possible, but the outcome is what happen in the mean-time. Some people do think that God is the Physics Law. Some do think that God is the Time, where this happened.
- kirse 18y agoIf the programmer specifies the boundaries (laws) of his own universe, then the evolutionary processes that happen within his own universe are not representative of the actual universe which he claims to be modeling. Why? 1) Current scientific claims express that the laws and boundaries of the universe came into existence without a designer. Having a designer anywhere in the equation is unacceptable, even one who simply created the universe, because that invalidates (or at least casts heavy doubt) on the naturalistic claims of any designer-free subprocesses that happen within the universe (specifically, Evolution). 2) Evolution itself is devoid of a designer and end goal. Logically, it is impossible to model a process that is inherently devoid of any design or purpose. It would only be scientific to question the accuracy of any model that can't even replicate the basic core constraints (eg. lack of a designer) of the system which it is trying to represent.
- nsrivast 18y agoThe point of genetic algorithms is NOT to replicate evolution. Like you mention, evolution has no end goal whereas engineers usually have very explicit end goals. (Other problems include time constraints and computing power!) The point of genetic algorithms is to exploit the principle of natural selection under very specific constraints and explicitly constructed utility functions that are likely to lead to a better solution to a given problem. Of course we're cheating a little, but we have to. "Organic" genetic algorithms that consistently achieve engineering design principles (like robustness, modularity, compartmentation, etc.) without constraints are the holy grail of the field.