🚀 go-pugleaf

Thus spake choup@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Ping Chou):
>
>        Isn't it true that selection/mating/mutation/chromosome/hybrid/
>genotype/phenotype/gene/... are taken from genetics?

No.  They are *inspired* by the biological processes of natural selection,
mutation, adaptation, speciation, etc.  They are meant to be analogous to
them, not rigidly isomorphic.

>        Don't you think you may be able to discover new algorithms from
>studying genetics?

Perhaps.  Cohoon, for example, has used such ecological notions as allopatric
speciation to motivate some of his work in parallel implementations of GA.
But GA is primarily concerned with solving problems, not mimicking nature.
If mimicking nature works best, so be it.  If it doesn't, none of us are 
going to lose sleep over the fact that our algorithm isn't "realistic".

>        BTW, I would appreciate any reasonable arguments because I'm trying
>to learn ai-genetic from the genetics side.

I'm not sure there *is* a genetics side, beyond the original motivation.
(I'm not sure there's an AI side, either; what's "intelligent" about a GA?)

David Tate

-- 
       David Tate        |"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
 dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | That sends the screaming liner over it 
 Prof. of Story Problems | And spills the bleacher-dwellers from their seats."
 Member ORSA, TIMS, SABR |  	"Fenway Wall", Robert Frost