NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 19 2015,08:11) | | Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 18 2015,09:29) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 18 2015,06:46) | Wikipedia is going to have to be changed too:
| Quote | In artificial intelligence, an evolutionary algorithm (EA) is a subset of evolutionary computation, a generic population-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm. An EA uses mechanisms inspired by biological evolution, such as reproduction, mutation, recombination, and selection. Candidate solutions to the optimization problem play the role of individuals in a population, and the fitness function determines the quality of the solutions (see also loss function). Evolution of the population then takes place after the repeated application of the above operators. Artificial evolution (AE) describes a process involving individual evolutionary algorithms; EAs are individual components that participate in an AE[citation needed].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......gorithm
|
Wow what a mess! |
The fact that you use Wikipedia as a primary source and misunderstand most of what you read there is not a good recommendation for your accomplishments in science. Most Wikipedia articles are written for a lay audience, and the assumption is that a person of average intellectual acuity will be able to obtain a basic understanding of the subject matter. Average intellectual acuity is an unreachable goal for you, as you continue to gleefully demonstrate. |
Science teachers who use Wikipedia expect to obtain a basic understanding of the subject matter, not misinformation. |
Science teachers already exceed the expected level of background and information required to make good use of Wikipedia.
You are neither a science teach, nor qualified to judge what they do and do not need, nor are you qualified to read Wikipedia articles with any faintest shred of comprehension.
As you have proven exhaustively over the last 8+ years.
But worst of all, you cannot identify a single specific item on Wikipedia that you know to be false and can justify that knowledge claim with facts, evidence, and logic.
Yet you continue the 'big lie' that Wiki is misleading science teachers. Pathetic, yet vile.
|
