Talk:Evolutionary algorithm: Difference between revisions
→Controversy on Wikipedia
(→Is the Python solution cheating?: Not cheating, but better separation might improve things) |
|||
Line 10:
# 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). —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 10:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
:That controversy does not currently seem to be there, and apparently it has been replaced by a critique of the limitations of these kinds of algorithms. Also, detecting that an absolute maxima has been reached may be prohibitively expensive. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 19:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
== Tacit J solution ==
| |||