|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Minkowski's challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22390 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I think you're addressing a superset of the problem and making your task more difficult. If given your skill set and available resources it doesn't really seem difficult to you then pay this no mind, but given that you're only working on weekends you do sound time-limited.
Once you begin predefining outcomes you're more in the realm of genetic algorithms than artificial life. Just as the mutation algorithm needn't be part of the code creature, a design decision you've already made, replication needn't be part of the code creature, either. It *can* be, but it doesn't have to be for the problem you're solving. The primary required components are a virtual machine, a replication and mutation mechanism, and an evaluator (selector) that assesses a code creature's fitness as measured by ability to produce encryption, no matter how rudimentary. The selector is actually your biggest problem, or it would be for me if I were doing this. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Albert Godwin Inactive Member |
Dear Barbarian
I am very sorry for being late. i will respond tomorrow at your last post. i hope that you will try to work on the subject after that without much questions, because i will be busy those days. sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I'm not fluent in Geek, but I understand bits of the convo and from what I can gather the parameters sound feasible. If evolution simulators are trustworthy in providing undeniable evidence of any kind of macroevolutionary advance via mutations and selection drift, then it should be a snap for a well-trained programmer. As far as the common objections of these simulators go, I have similar objections.
However, someone is going to have to translate the results for me because I don't speak geek. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The translation is that it is fun but tells us absolutely nothing. We KNOW that evolution happened. That is a 100% true fact, probability is 1. It matters not what the result of the programming challenge is, Evolution happened.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The translation is that it is fun but tells us absolutely nothing. We KNOW that evolution happened. That is a 100% true fact, probability is 1. It matters not what the result of the programming challenge is, Evolution happened. I guess that's all dependant on what someone means when they say, "evolution." There still is not a concensus on what evolution even means. And the evidence of such is that it is constantly being divided both by its opponents and proponents into two main forms-- micro and macro-- real and imagined. In my opinion, yes, an evolution of sorts is undeniable. The real question, the one that keeps this very forum from contuining is whether or not slight gradations over time can lead to a magnificent speciation that connects eukaryotes and prokaryotes or a timeline that shows that man and amoeba share the same ancestors. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The real question, the one that keeps this very forum from contuining is whether or not slight gradations over time can lead to a magnificent speciation that connects eukaryotes and prokaryotes or a timeline that shows that man and amoeba share the same ancestors. Sorry, that is simply not a question. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The translation is that it is fun but tells us absolutely nothing. We KNOW that evolution happened. That is a 100% true fact, probability is 1. It matters not what the result of the programming challenge is, Evolution happened. It certainly does not tell us anything, as you say, but it might be more than just fun. A common refrain I've heard from I.D flavor creos is that mutations cannot add information. I'm no more fluent in geek than nj, but it seems to me that if a project of this sort succeeds, it would at least provide ammo against the claim that the creos are making. BTW, if Aslan is not a tame lion, then what is it? And why would we even think it is a tame lion to begin with? Inquiring minds want to know. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Barbarian Inactive Member |
It may be that the result is ill-defined, but I understood it as requiring the final outcome to contain some sort of encryption and be able to replicate itself. In that case, if I don't insist on the requirement for perfect self-replication, it will be lost along the way and quite difficult to evolve it again. This is a genetic algorithm sort of setup: the ability to procreate is part of the rating algorithm - once perfect self-replication is proven, it is the environment which applies mutations and creates new instances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Barbarian Inactive Member |
Hi, Albert -
quote:I think it bears repeating that I did not accept the challenge yet. I might try to do it anyway for reasons stated above, but it might still turn out to be asking for the impossible (and irrelevant). Obviously, I have to ask questions until all is clear. Sorry, that's the way it works. We do not have a deadline at all, so if you cannot answer my questions during the next month, it is not a problem for me. That being said, there are chances that after this round of questions, the challenge becomes clear enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Albert Godwin Inactive Member |
Hi barbarian
sorry for being that late, > I wanted to know if by 'encryption' you mean strong encryption, that is, an encryption that is difficult to break even if you know perfectly how it was done, or something simpler, like XORing or adding some constant to every byte etc. (In fact, inverting the sequence of bytes would also be sort of an encryption, because it would already hide the sequence from the selector even if it knew how to jump over inserted or altered bytes.) Xoring is enough. > I don't feel like even attempting to implement a selector based on the strength of the encryption (I would bet that this is impossible for the general scope), but checking whether certain bytes get executed but found nowhere in the code would be simple enough proof that they were, in fact, encrypted.>I propose to have a number of special instructions which would be detected if executed by the program but which should not show up in the program code. This would prove that they were generated by the program before execution; it is a different task to select the program which does this by decryption. For both i say: You are free to use whatever you'd like > There is a question about whether the decryptor code must be correctly executable in all generations. I would, just to keep it realistic, propose that it does not need to be. IF it is not correctly executable then the file will not work. Sorry but all the offspring from the first file to the goal must be executable. > Naturally I would, in such a case, publish the entire source code, virtual machine, selectors and all. Actually, even if I don't accept the challenge in the end, I would probably still publish the code I have written so far, as it is a nice virtual machine and a good pedagogical demo of the O'Caml language. Thank you. I hope that you will accept the challenge, because, as you see, nobody else here dared to. >In the original example, the code subjected to evolution is providing its own mutation mechanism. I would move this part out from the program, for the following reasons: One more time: OK, you are on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Albert Godwin Inactive Member |
>The OP example writes 676 copies of itself, which are ........ unnecessary goals.
OK! make the program make one copy. I am very flexible, no ? > We are approaching this stuff from very different positions. The challenge is not yet entirely clear, e.g. see the discussion about encryption above. Depending on the clarifications, it could turn out to ask for the impossible or for the impractical. So far, do you accept the challenge or think that it is fair enough? > Well, yeah. Sort of. Make that chance operating in strict accord with uncompromising natural laws. But is the context of this challenge so far-reaching? I still try to see it as a mere exercise in trying to evolve some irreducibly complex structure. Thats what the original author seems to think about it:lulu.com/fadybahig But to me, it is an excellent method to practically show the programmers how evolution is very unlikely to happen. Cya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Albert,
If you're not interested in discussion but only in exchanging information with Barbarian about the requirements for an artificial life program that can evolve encryption, then please refrain from making taunts and assertions such as these:
Albert Godwin writes: Thank you. I hope that you will accept the challenge, because, as you see, nobody else here dared to. ... But to me, it is an excellent method to practically show the programmers how evolution is very unlikely to happen. The taunts are against the Forum Guidelines under all circumstances, see rule 10. And the unwillingness to respond to rebuttals is against rule 4.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Albert Godwin Inactive Member |
Hi Admin,
> Thank you. I hope that you will accept the challenge, because, as you see, nobody else here dared to. I don't deny that this is a taunt. But it is a fact as well. Nobody did accept the challenge till this very moment. > But to me, it is an excellent method to practically show the programmers how evolution is very unlikely to happen. Honestly I don't see any taunt here at all, really ! > And the unwillingness to respond to rebuttals is against rule 4 I have stated that i am here for a practical challenge since the very first post. and I am keeping my word; When a man (Barbarian) agreed i responded to each and every reply that he wrote. But I stated also that i am not intersted in theoritical maneuvers to scatter the attention from the main PRACTICAL challenge. I hope that you understand my position now. Cya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Albert Godwin writes: I hope that you understand my position now. Sure I understand your position! You'd like to use your evolution challenge as an excuse for issuing taunts and making assertions that you don't feel the need to defend. I've been moderating these boards for a *long* time. There isn't much I haven't seen, and you're not doing anything original. If you remember your thread proposal, three moderators chimed in with various concerns, so you're not really fooling anyone. Play it straight, follow the Forum Guidelines, and try to at least pretend that you have a sincere interest in exploring the evidence where it leads. You see, it's actually much more important that you understand my position than the other way around. I place a great deal of importance on quality and constructive discussion. The usual enforcement procedure for those not similarly inclined is short suspensions that gradually increase in duration. So is that clear enough, dude? Just in case we come from such different worlds that it's not yet clear, let me put it another way. This is a serious debate site and I'd like to keep it that way. Any more bullshit from you, a guy who registered twice and is using a fictional novel as the basis for his assertions and who has already been given considerable leeway just in allowing this thread to be promoted and who is studiously refusing to learn anything about the subjects he's discussing, and the suspensions start immediately. How's that for clear? So discuss the details of Barbarian's evolution program all you like. If you'd like to actually discuss the topics of artificial life and genetic algorithms, that would be even better. Violate the Forum Guidelines any further and it'll be vacation time for you. Discussion threads are not the place for a back and forth about moderation concerns, so if you have anything further you'd like to discuss about this then please take it to the proper thread: General discussion of moderation procedures - Part
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Albert Godwin Inactive Member |
I see Admin's last post unexplainably offensive and personal. He is becoming irrationally offensive although I NEVER had the intention of getting myself into battles here.
Dear Barbarian, I don't know if Admin will ban me or not. The only reason I hope that he doesn't is because I respect you and really wanted to keep this conversation with you till the end. In case you still need any clarification, post it and if I don't answer I guess you will know that I was banned. In that case you can mail me at albrto211@yahoo.com I don't think that I'd ban if I were in his shoes, I guess for a man who is not spreading the F-word around to the other members, banning will only mean a failure to cope with.... Good luck with the challenge (in case you agreed to take it) And if you come up with result, post it here and i will check it. Cya ( perhaps Adieu )
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024