Turncoat
Posts: 129
Joined: Dec. 2007
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 20 2009,16:49) | | Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 20 2009,14:44) | | Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 20 2009,14:03) | | 2: For his interview, Dawkins needed the program to run for ~ 2000 generations. This could be achieved by the combination (10 children, 4% mutation rate) But I suppose that Dawkins just fooled around a little bit with his program to get an optimal number of runs, i.e., the program was running during the length of his interview… |
Is that correct? Dawkins seems to be showing all the children, not just the parents. It's slower because it takes time to display on the antique system he's using. [...] |
I think the number 2485 comes up at the end of the video as the number of individuals. If that is the case, Dawkins likely did have to find fairly particular parameters in order to terminate in the short time of the video sequence, and the slow display system likely did have an impact on that. I think I posted some numbers here before on the likely parameter space the video run's parameters were taken from. |
My previous comment regarding Weasel2 was wrong. I should have used Wolfram's MathWorld rather than Wikipedia to get the mean of the negative binomial distribution. Wikipedia explains the r parameter incorrectly. The mean number of trials required for an uphill step is (1 - p) / p, not 2 * (1 - p) / p.
The mean number of trials for Weasel2 to reach the target is about 2900. In simulation, 12% of runs require 2485 or fewer trials.
My apologies for not double-checking my work prior to posting here.
--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman
|
