Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2007,11:21)|
|Quote (franky172 @ Nov. 01 2007,10:51)|
|Gil Dodgen has opined on the relative value of Zachriel's word Mutagenation program. Of course Zach is quite capable of pointing out the numerous idiotic comments in Dodgen's reply, but I can't help jumping on the bandwagon pre-emptively.|
Dodgen starts out:
|I downloaded the simulation and looked at the source code. It is written in a programming language with which I am extremely familiar because I used it to develop the mission planner for our company’s guided airdrop system. |
Yes, we are all impressed by your ability to write simulations.
He then spends the next 4 paragraphs describing the binary search implemented to make the dictionary lookup (read: fitness evaluation) efficient. What does this prove?
It proves that Dodgen knows what a binary search is - i.e. Dodgen took a second semester programming course. What does it say about the relevance of Word Mutagenation as a model of evolutionary biology? NOTHING. The efficiency of the algorithm for determining word fitness has NOTHING to do with the fact that Word Mutagenation finds words via RM+NS. (Much like my own humble additions do here:
|None of this has anything to do with biological Darwinian evolution. |
But Dodgen has moved the goalposts - the author of the e-mail didn't want ot simulate biological evolution - he wanted to show that RM+NS was an effective search strategy - which he did.
Tell us again about mutating the hardware Dodgen, that at least was funny.
(edit: link fixed)
I was that author. I've emailed Barry, who has been polite in our conversations to be fair to him, to ask if Zach. would be permitted to reply to this, erm, 'critique'.
Oh, I have no doubt that both Barry and Gil are polite, and probably decent fellows, I don't begrudge them that.
Sorry if my critique here is out of place or if you (and Zach) would like me to refrain from critiquing this "critique" until this plays out over at UD.