Sapient Fridge
spintronic
Let me see it, and work out if all your BS was true.
HighQ
> Why are you embarrassed of your code?
>
> Let me see it, and work out if all your BS was true.
Another negative star.
Must have hit *another* nerve.
No wonder NOONE believes your theories.
IF YOU WAS HONEST PEOPLE, THEY MIGHT.
What are you afraid of?
spintronic
>
> Let me see it, and work out if all your BS was true.
Wow, they have such big mouths until you ask simple questions.
(Any luck with that code yet?)
Sapient Fridge
<0d158614-bf64-40e6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>Why are you embarrassed of your code?
No, I'll put it on my website - probably later tonight.
In the meantime I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread:
"The first time you asked was only last night and in the meantime I've
got a stinking cold and had to take my wife to hospital for a minor
operation. You aren't my highest priority at the moment."
>Let me see it, and work out if all your BS was true.
What bullshit? Do you think I generated those expressions by hand or
something?
For anyone who hasn't tuned into this from the "Evolutionary locking"
thread, I'll give some background:
Spinny came up with an interesting programming puzzle which was to write
a genetic algorithm to generate an expression which evaluates to a
particular target number e.g.
655 = 6*6*6*3+7
He posted his code and mentioned that it couldn't reach the target
number in some cases. However, rather than debug his code, he declared
that it showed that evolution itself "locked".
Anyway, I decided that the problem was interesting enough to code up,
and should be reasonably amenable to a genetic algorithm, so I coded one
up in perl. It didn't lock and always generated some rather nice
expressions. So I had a look at Spinny's code to see what the problem
was there. Here are the two algorithms:
Spinny's:
Take a single simple expression and mutate it. If the mutation moves
the expression closer to the target then replace the original
expression. Continue until the target is reached, which may not be
possible as it can hit local maxima that it cannot get out of.
Mine:
Take several hundred random expressions and breed the next generation
from them by mating them in pairs using crossover. When the offspring
are produced some of them are mutated. Expressions that are closer to
the target get more breeding opportunities (using a variant of
tournament selection). Continue until target reached. Works fine.
I pointed out that his code wasn't really a genetic algorithm because he
didn't have population with variation, and there was no breeding going
on. At that point Spinny declares that my program doesn't work because
if was realistic and really simulated evolution then it should "lock",
and is now demanding to see my code (which I will post soon).
Personally I think that claiming his program shows that evolution locks
then declaring that my program is unrealistic because if it were using
evolution then it would also lock is rather circular logic.
BTW: I challenged Spinny to produce his 5 best expressions for the value
12345678910, these are mine (paste into Google to verify):
9^2^3*6*6-9*9*7+1*8^9-9-7+(2*5)^8*2+8^6+9^(5+5)*3+5-5+2*(3*7)^4*3-8*2-7-1*7^4
9-1-1+8^9*5*2*9+5^6+2+6-(9-1)*3*3*9*2+9^5*5*4*(3-5)+2*8^9+5-7-9-3^5-4-2*6*8-8^4
6^4-9-7+5-6^7*2-6*9+4+6*7^9-5^7+8+5*(1-5)+8^8-4^5*8+9^8-5-7^5+9^7-7-8/4*9^9+5^9*3^8
1+4^2*9^6+1+4-8*7*5^5+7*8^9*5-1+4^2*9^6+2*5-4^7*2-3^4+8^8*7-4+5+8^9*7*8^1-8^2*8*9-6^8-3^9*7*5
(8+1)*2^4*4^5+9+7-7+9*9*6+9^(9+1)+9^2*7+9^6-9*6-3+8*(7^9+2)*3*9-3-6-4+8+3+8^(7+2)+7+9+9^5+4*(6*3)^5
None of those have been cleaned up or touched by hand (there are some
obvious optimisations visible). Not sure if Spinny will post any
expressions in return or not. He doesn't seem interested in the
challenge.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
<use_repl...@spamsights.org> writes
>In message
><0d158614-bf64-40e6...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>spintronic <spint...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Why are you embarrassed of your code?
>
>No, I'll put it on my website - probably later tonight.
Code now uploaded. Follow the comments at the top to run it.
http://www.spamsights.org/misc/beastie_runner.txt
Sensible bug reports, suggestions and comments are welcome.
Baron Bodissey
wrote:
> In message
> <0d158614-bf64-40e6-a925-fca41fae5...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> writes
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
I am not a programmer nor have I ever played one on television.
However, I did play around quite a bit with BASIC and Pascal in the
DOS days of personal computers. Spinny's algorithm looks suspiciously
similar to the algorithm of a simple bubble-sort I coded for fun way
back when.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon
VoiceOfReason
> > Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> > Kill:http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
>
> I am not a programmer nor have I ever played one on television.
> However, I did play around quite a bit with BASIC and Pascal in the
> DOS days of personal computers. Spinny's algorithm looks suspiciously
> similar to the algorithm of a simple bubble-sort I coded for fun way
> back when.
Bubble sort? How 1970's...
:-)
Baron Bodissey
> > > Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> > > Kill:http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
>
> > I am not a programmer nor have I ever played one on television.
> > However, I did play around quite a bit with BASIC and Pascal in the
> > DOS days of personal computers. Spinny's algorithm looks suspiciously
> > similar to the algorithm of a simple bubble-sort I coded for fun way
> > back when.
>
> Bubble sort? How 1970's...
>
> :-)
Well, yeah.