Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 02 2011,14:55)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 02 2011,14:41)|
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 02 2011,14:06)|
|Yeah, excel isn't really the right tool for the job. Playing with it you can see a race - can the positive mutation gain a foothold, or will negative mutations degrade it? Of course, the odds should favour positive mutations in the long run. It would be cool to track individual mutations and create family trees using them.|
You know, thinking about it further, it looks like the sim hit what is close to a global max right before the dip.
It's just because there is a limited number of available mutations. As the die fitness gets higher, then the likelihood of the next mutation being detrimental increases. So, in this simulation, you should see a large drop in fitness soon after the sim hits a very high overall fitness.
That wouldn't happen if the number on the die face was not limited to 1-6.
The maximum fitness would be 6, Average (6,6,6,6,6,6) and this fitness could only ever be degraded, by mutation. It would be hard to reach because, for example (6,6,6,6,6,5) needs the a mutation (0.1%) on the right face (0.1667) and only a six will do (0.1667) = 0.000027778. It means you're almost 35 times as likely to get a negative or neutral mutation for this dice (if you allow mutations to mutate into..themselves) - if you're 'lucky' enough to get a mutation at all.
Yeah, I think that's what I'm saying.
The fitness drop (overall) was because past a certain fitness, it's much more likely to have a negative mutation than a positive one.
In that 6,6,6,6,6,5 example all but one mutation would result in lower fitness.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.