I am reminded of two conflicting reports I got from two friends about an
attempt to evolve a sorting program. One friend reported that it was
discouraging. The evolved programs never were reliable and they took all kinds
of time and had many superfluous features. The only way to actually get an
algorithm that worked was to have a sorting method in mind then give the
program more survival credit the more it mimicked the program in mind.
Another friend reported that the attempt was a phenomenal success.
A program evolved which sorted lists perfectly and efficiently and which was
unlike any known sorting algorithm, In fact, no on could figure out what the
program was doing; the only reason they felt it most be theoretically correct
was that it sorted a huge number of lists perfectly every time.
Can any of you tell me which friend is giving a more accurate
account? (It is possible that the accounts refer to different experiments and
are both accurate. The pessimistic account was told to me about 10 years ago,
the other account recently.)
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
