Code center > Suggestions
Mutation Protection method- in voting
Peter:
--- Quote from: jknilinux ---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.
--- End quote ---
The .mrepro was just a little suggestion I made (took over from numsgil). I won't make a big point getting it inplemented or not. As I like Eric-idea overall better anyway. It wouldn't have an effect on the other ways trough. So it wouldn't couse any trouble if would be too implented.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Just a percentage of mutations that get through that was the original setting too, right.
You get dna-mutations anyway. Any small mistake that could ever happen in RAM and change the dna.
--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
Maybe slime..
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---mrepro exists in the current version.
...
But it never made it in the VB code.
--- End quote ---
Do you mean it's in the current version of the C++ DB?
--- End quote ---
Nope,
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
VB .mrepro couses normal reproduction exept it creates a mutated child.
C++ .mrepro changes the mutation rate of a reproduction. This never made it in VB.
C++ is disbanded anyway trough.
jknilinux:
--- Quote from: Peter ---
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Just a percentage of mutations that get through that was the original setting too, right.
You get dna-mutations anyway. Any small mistake that could ever happen in RAM and change the dna.
--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
Maybe slime..
--- End quote ---
Well, I was trying to find a way to implement what I thought you were suggesting. To be honest, I think only having the regular mutation protection without .mrepro will suffice.
You're right- slime works. I never investigated slime before... Just forget I ever asked that.
Numsgil:
I just mentioned what I did with mrepro because it's somewhat related to what we're talking about. I'm not trying to suggest that it's a replacement for any of the other ideas talked about; it serves a different purpose.
jknilinux:
So, apparently we're going to implement a hybrid: Eric's instruction idea with costs, assuming the polls don't change. Although I was hoping that we would get enough votes for us to find that a statistically significant portion of the DB users wanted choice x, because with 6 votes you can't say much about what 3,000 users want, but maybe we can implement the losing ideas once we get the winner working, so it can still be fair ultimately.
I wonder why only 6 people voted... I'd appreciate criticism here...
Peter:
--- Quote from: jknilinux ---So, apparently we're going to implement a hybrid: Eric's instruction idea with costs, assuming the polls don't change. Although I was hoping that we would get enough votes for us to find that a statistically significant portion of the DB users wanted choice x, because with 6 votes you can't say much about what 3,000 users want, but maybe we can implement the losing ideas once we get the winner working, so it can still be fair ultimately.
I wonder why only 6 people voted... I'd appreciate criticism here...
--- End quote ---
I would think becouse there aren't 3000 people. I think there where only a few people who visited last time. My little league-poll also has just 7 people, there aren't that much. I gues you can figure out there are only a few active on this forum.
And I think that the idea of eric is not harder implent then the others. So making more implementation of ideas would be a waste of time anyway. The list of Eric is long enough anyhow.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version