Welcome To Darwinbots > Newbie

Delurk

<< < (2/3) > >>

Numsgil:
That would be pretty cool :D

Carlo:

--- Quote ---Yup, I hear ya.  Eventually, I'd love to see both atomic instruction level and module 'area' level mutation encoded inside the genome but I fully understand how the latter is more involved.
--- End quote ---
Just add some new token (instruction) to the dna code (say , for example, 'mut') which has no effect but increasing the mutation rate of the surrounding code. Say that the mutation rate of the surrounding code increases proportionally with the proximity to the mut tokens. And that the influence of the mut tokens is addictive. The token moves with the code, as it is subject to deletions, transpositions, etc. It is subject itself to mutations, and it can be inserted, deleted, etc.
Would it be ok?

Bye

Numsgil:
My only qualm would be that it could possibly "clutter up" the neighborhood associativity of DNA commands.

For instance, 3 5 add 2 div is a method to push 2 onto the stack.  This little equation takes 5 base pairs/atomic units in the DNA.

Now suppose you throw in some muts:

3 5 mut mut add mut 2 mut div

The computational complexity of the equation hasn't changed one iota, but its elements have become more sparse, leading to less homogenous effects from mutations, and different selective pressures.

Which is why I think attributes of DNA strands should not be emcoded in the DNA array itself (at least, not in a way that changes neighborhood associativity)..

Carlo:

--- Quote ---3 5 mut mut add mut 2 mut div

The computational complexity of the equation hasn't changed one iota, but its elements have become more sparse, leading to less homogenous effects from mutations, and different selective pressures.
--- End quote ---
What do you mean precisely with "less homogeneous effects from mutations" and "different selective pressures"? Could you make an example?

Endy:
Maybe we could tie in a couple of ideas here. Suppose every 1999 units the counter reset to zero. Therefore 2003 is the same as 3. 3199 would be the same as 199.

The sysvars would have the same appearence as the normal numbers but their numeric values would be radically different.

Then have mutation rates of those sysvars slightly rise as the values increase. There'd be 16 different matches for any single sysvar but they'd have different rates of mutating as the number increased in size.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page