Code center > Suggestions

Mutation Protection method- in voting

<< < (8/11) > >>

bacillus:
I'd change to my new idea; I'm really fond of the concept of tagging on metadata, as it can be handled seperately to regular DNA, so won't really require the stack/memory.
EDIT=>I did actually provide specifics with my idea, the difference between it being a concept and what actually happened was that no-one understood it/ignored it.

jknilinux:

--- Quote from: bacillus ---In reply to 3.), it simple represents an effective 'mutation-immunity' system becoming ineffective over time, and needing refreshing. The major issue (note that this is not the only suggestion that has this issue) is that it relies on the data being stored in a memory location; multiple attempts at protecting DNA will override previous attempts, therefore the way to go will eventually be in the form of metadata. Based on that, I'd change my suggestion to combine the metatag suggestion with the protective enzyme protection system, which also gives a way to control the costs of protecting DNA. (in nrg per unit produced, evenly distributed within the tags, or perhaps allocated by a variable)
EDIT=>Don't forget that most people invloved in this discussion put forward an idea themselves, so I'd be surprised if there is a clear winner
--- End quote ---

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your original suggestion- this is the most detailed overview of it I could find. As far as I can see, it mentions:

1: Mutation protection degrades over time. (In suggestion summary)
2: Relies on data being stored in memory. (I put in the suggestion summary that it's not metadata, which is the same, right?)
3: DNA is protected by most recent MPI. (I thought this was obvious- as far as I know, we want things to be affected only by the most recent MPI, because it's in it's scope. I don't see why we'd want something different.)

So, please let me know of what I missed.

bacillus:
I'll start again:
Step 1-make enzyme. This will act the same way as slime does, decaying over time, more enzyme provides more protection eg reduce chance of mutatoins
Step 2-use X .protect store; if X is negative, it will protect X bps before the command, if positive, the next X bps after the command. The bigger the size of code protected, the faster enzymes wear off.

Note that I later changed Step 2 to tagging with metadata, which allows multiple protects in one cycle (not sure about logic though), and the distribution of substances.

jknilinux:

--- Quote from: bacillus ---I'll start again:
Step 1-make enzyme. This will act the same way as slime does, decaying over time, more enzyme provides more protection eg reduce chance of mutatoins
Step 2-use X .protect store; if X is negative, it will protect X bps before the command, if positive, the next X bps after the command. The bigger the size of code protected, the faster enzymes wear off.

Note that I later changed Step 2 to tagging with metadata, which allows multiple protects in one cycle (not sure about logic though), and the distribution of substances.
--- End quote ---

OK, I understand now. I think you summarized it well, so I just copied/pasted. Done.

Thanks!!

bacillus:
Whee, some one understood me for once  

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page