> "zaimoni@ksu.edu" at Dec 16, 96 11:46:18 am
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
>
> > Yes, the state-space of all reachable algorithms is the "preexisting" bit.
>
> By that reasoning, /no/ process of discovery in the intellectual field
> is anything more than a "hunt," as the state-space of all possible
> memes/physical-states is being "searched."
We're pushing some fine lines here. A nonalgorithmic search is *not* a
hunt. My impression is that a genetic algorithm is an algorithmic search
[that usually uses (pseudo)random numbers....]
> > I agree that "breeding" an algorithm isn't linearly rational, but it may
> > very well be parallelly/nonlinearly rational. I'm experimenting with that
> > [by hand] in some of my side studies.
>
> Oh, I'm not so sure about it being nonlinearly rational; it starts
> with a single idea (an idea of what's `better') and grows a tree,
> checking the leaves for `goodness.' Pretty linear /seen on that
> level/, but looking at it from a progress PoV, its non-congruant.
That's "linearizing" the procedure. The intermediate results are
unnecessarily hard to understand because the notation does not
correspond to the algorithm's methodology.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////