Juan J. Merelo wrote: > The ideal is supposed to be ~ 20/80, but some > purists say it should be ~ 1/99.
There is no theoretical ideal. Anyone who says there is is either wrong, or is speaking in the context of some very specific experimental protocol. > Genetic programming, actually, uses > only some very specific kind of mutations, Well, sure; so does GA. Flipping a bit is very specific, yes? > [GP] makes up for lost diversity by creating a huge and diverse initial > population. No, that's not true -- at least, no more so than for GA. GP does not suffer from "loss of diversity" any more than GA. I would contend that it suffers from the opposite problem; without heuristic constraints, the genome space in GP is effectively unbounded (since individuals can grow without bound). One simple way to see this is to consider that in (standard) GA, crossover never changes the shape of the genome; whereas in GP, crossover can (in general) create genome shapes that had not previously been seen. > OPEAL comes closest to it, if only I find the time > to upload it. You probably already know this, but I'd point out that before you upload OPEAL to CPAN, you'll need to fix its naming scheme. Almost all your modules have top-level names. -- John Douglas Porter I no longer love the color of your sweaters.
