Code center > Suggestions

Mutation Protection method- in voting

<< < (4/11) > >>

Numsgil:
It was something I did for the C++ branch.  mrepro, instead of causing reproduction, would influence mutation rates of the next .repro event.  negative values decreased mutation rates, positive numbers increased mutation rates.  I think there was a cost/benefit associated with it (negative values cost time or nrg, positive values save time or nrg).

jknilinux:
Numsgil:
Alright, maybe that was a bad example. But anyway, you know what I mean.

Also, are you saying that .mrepro was not in the main VB DB?

Peter:
Yes, but what I was saying is that a bot could put it's whole genome inside the mutation protection instruction/codule, and therefore could protect/enhance mutation rates for the entire genome. This is what you wanted, right?

And ya, I admit, I copied and pasted as well. Rushed  

Cyberduke:
Anyway, I hope I clarified. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair#Ra...utionary_change
for a bit more info.

Numsgil:
mrepro exists in the current version, but it works like .repro does.  The value represents the % of your resources the child gets.  I changed it so mrepro worked as a modifier to .repro instead of working independently.  But it never made it in the VB code.

Peter:

--- Quote from: jknilinux ---Peter:
Yes, but what I was saying is that a bot could put it's whole genome inside the mutation protection instruction/codule, and therefore could protect/enhance mutation rates for the entire genome. This is what you wanted, right?
--- End quote ---
Well, using negative .mrepro would then only protect during reproduction. The genome after the protection instruction would be protected by all kind of mutations. So that is the only difference.

jknilinux:

--- Quote from: Peter ---
--- Quote from: jknilinux ---Peter:
Yes, but what I was saying is that a bot could put it's whole genome inside the mutation protection instruction/codule, and therefore could protect/enhance mutation rates for the entire genome. This is what you wanted, right?
--- End quote ---
Well, using negative .mrepro would then only protect during reproduction. The genome after the protection instruction would be protected by all kind of mutations. So that is the only difference.

--- End quote ---

Well, as far as I know, point mutations are the only mutations that do not occur during reproduction. So, point mutations should be the only difference between -x.mrepro and putting everything inside the mutation protection codule/instruction. And, as far as I know, organisms can repair point mutations as well- see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_DNA_damage
So, I still think there should be no difference.

However, maybe we should add a tiny amount of point mutations that none of the mutation protection methods, even on max setting, can protect against. This might be more realistic.  However, that would rule out certain applications of this feature, where you need 100% protection from everything.

By the way, what should we do about viruses? I think mutation protection should be hapless against protecting from viruses, but that eliminates the ability to protect the DNA from anything, which some people might want for certain cases. What do you think?


--- Quote from: Numsgil ---mrepro exists in the current version.
--- End quote ---
...

--- Quote from: Numsgil ---But it never made it in the VB code.
--- End quote ---

Do you mean it's in the current version of the C++ DB?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page