Talk:Evolutionary algorithm: Difference between revisions
(→Controversy on Wikipedia: new section) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
# This is (somewhat) directed evolution, though this mostly just affects the fitness function. |
# This is (somewhat) directed evolution, though this mostly just affects the fitness function. |
||
# There is an end-point to the evolution (only really needed to make it into an algorithm rather than an ongoing process). |
# There is an end-point to the evolution (only really needed to make it into an algorithm rather than an ongoing process). |
||
These issues can be technically resolved by making only the fitness function know what the target is and having the algorithm only terminate once perfect fitness is achieved (i.e., when no possible mutation will improve things). At that point, the ''scientific'' issues are moot, and the non-scientific ones dispute whether the algorithm should even exist, which is out of scope for this site anyway. As a plus side, it also makes the presentation of the algorithm more aesthetically pleasing as it removes the assumption that there is only one possible maxima (informal testing using a fitness function that uses the max of individual fitness functions as in this task, except with different target strings, indicates that this works quite well). |
These issues can be technically resolved by making only the fitness function know what the target is and having the algorithm only terminate once perfect fitness is achieved (i.e., when no possible mutation will improve things). At that point, the ''scientific'' issues are moot, and the non-scientific ones dispute whether the algorithm should even exist, which is out of scope for this site anyway. As a plus side, it also makes the presentation of the algorithm more aesthetically pleasing as it removes the assumption that there is only one possible maxima (informal testing using a fitness function that uses the max of individual fitness functions as in this task, except with different target strings, indicates that this works quite well). —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 10:12, 9 October 2009
Adherence to similarly named variables/functions?
When I added the text:
- Note: to aid comparison, try and ensure the variables and functions mentioned in the task description appear in solutions
I was not sure if I might be "stepping on implementers toes" too much, so if your languages normal idioms would be broken by the above, then please discuss, although caSe changes/lngth changes should just be done. (I would expect it to be broken by languages created solely to be obtuse such as brainf*!ck, and calculator programs might have limits on name sizes). --Paddy3118 03:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Controversy on Wikipedia
WP mentions that this is a controversial algorithm (with all the noise apparently coming from people who don't grok what it is actually showing, naturally). However, there are only really two controversial points:
- This is (somewhat) directed evolution, though this mostly just affects the fitness function.
- There is an end-point to the evolution (only really needed to make it into an algorithm rather than an ongoing process).
These issues can be technically resolved by making only the fitness function know what the target is and having the algorithm only terminate once perfect fitness is achieved (i.e., when no possible mutation will improve things). At that point, the scientific issues are moot, and the non-scientific ones dispute whether the algorithm should even exist, which is out of scope for this site anyway. As a plus side, it also makes the presentation of the algorithm more aesthetically pleasing as it removes the assumption that there is only one possible maxima (informal testing using a fitness function that uses the max of individual fitness functions as in this task, except with different target strings, indicates that this works quite well). —Donal Fellows 10:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)