Code center > Suggestions
Sexual Reproduction
shvarz:
--- Quote ---3. If two genes both say to turn 10 degrees, I think most of us would expect the bot to turn 10 degrees instead of 20. Several genes that all agree with each other should provide a reinforcement for the behavior instead of amplification.
--- End quote ---
This can be easily avoided using existing DNA rules. The second gene can check what is already stored in the location it wants to modify and adjust for that. So in your example the second gene would subtract the value stored in .aimsx from the value it thinks needs to be stored and store that.
Say gene 1 stored 10 in .aimsx and gene 2 thinks that the value should be 30. It goes
30 *.aimsx sub .aimsx store
this will subtract 10 from 30 and write 20 into aimsx bringing the value to the necessary 30.
Welwordion:
Just add the values and half them, that would be easier fo numbers that relate to quantity only the reading of memory locations stays problematic. (up +aimdx= sx <--- rather strange)
Numsgil:
What if there are then three values being stored there. Or eight? Or a million?
shvarz - My point #2 still holds then even if 1 and 3 can be worked around within the DNA.
Numsgil:
Thought about it in terms of implementation and see another issue:
If you are just having store be additive, I'm assuming you're executing both codules in a diploid pair, right?
How do you decide which one gets to go first and which one gets to go last. The one that goes last has the potential to overwrite any that come before (*.up - 10 add .up store), effectively making it somewhat "dominant". We run into the same problem as before.
Again, I think additive store is an interesting idea, I just don't think it solves the problem of dominant/recessive.
shvarz:
I can't say I understand the #2 completely. I just re-read it and I still don't get it. Are you saying that ideally you would want "dominancy" to apply specifically to a gene? As in "to a certain string of DNA commands"? That does not make much sense. Dominancy is a term applied to the phenotipic outcome of gene expression. The term relates to phenotype, not to genotype.
And it does not have to relate to two copies of the same gene located on two paired chromosomes. In fact you can have several genes on the same chromosome and one of them would be dominant. Or you can have two completely different genes and one of them would have a dominant effect over the other.
Say you have a chain of reactions A->B->C with enzymes AB and BC performing the two reactions and expressed from two different genes. Deletion or mutation in the gene AB (stopping the reaction A->B) will have dominant effect on this process over anything that might happen in gene BC. S
So dominancy should work on stores, which is the analog of phenotype in DB.
There is one example where things go the way you envision them. Human females have two X chromosomes, but only one of them is active. The other one is completely inhibited. I'm not sure how it is decided which one is inhibited. I think they "duke it out" early in development and then it stays that way for the rest of the person's life. There the dominancy indeed works on "above the gene" level. But it is more of an exception than the rule.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version