home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!genetic
- From: genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave)
- Newsgroups: comp.ai.genetic
- Subject: Re: So, genetic algorithms have nothing to do with genetics?
- Message-ID: <2268@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
- Date: 21 Jan 93 16:16:59 GMT
- References: <1jlmb2INNjp4@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>
- Sender: news+@pitt.edu
- Organization: Department of Industrial Engineering
- Lines: 31
-
- Thus spake choup@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Ping Chou):
- >
- > Isn't it true that selection/mating/mutation/chromosome/hybrid/
- >genotype/phenotype/gene/... are taken from genetics?
-
- No. They are *inspired* by the biological processes of natural selection,
- mutation, adaptation, speciation, etc. They are meant to be analogous to
- them, not rigidly isomorphic.
-
- > Don't you think you may be able to discover new algorithms from
- >studying genetics?
-
- Perhaps. Cohoon, for example, has used such ecological notions as allopatric
- speciation to motivate some of his work in parallel implementations of GA.
- But GA is primarily concerned with solving problems, not mimicking nature.
- If mimicking nature works best, so be it. If it doesn't, none of us are
- going to lose sleep over the fact that our algorithm isn't "realistic".
-
- > BTW, I would appreciate any reasonable arguments because I'm trying
- >to learn ai-genetic from the genetics side.
-
- I'm not sure there *is* a genetics side, beyond the original motivation.
- (I'm not sure there's an AI side, either; what's "intelligent" about a GA?)
-
- David Tate
-
- --
- David Tate |"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
- dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | That sends the screaming liner over it
- Prof. of Story Problems | And spills the bleacher-dwellers from their seats."
- Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR | "Fenway Wall", Robert Frost
-