🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1136@kepler1.rentec.com>, andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:
> In article <1992Jul30.102118@trc.amoco.com> zkdc05@trc.amoco.com (Kelly D. Crawford) writes:
> >
> >GAs are more robust than SAs,
> 
> This is as far as I can tell, a commonly accepted falsehood. You can transform
> any GA into SA by choosing a funny configuration space topology and annealing
> schedule. You can go the other way more transparently, (by multiplexing the
...
> 
> >there has been much more research done on GAs,
> 
> I don't think so. I think that both GA and SA have reasonable profiles in the
> literature.
> 
> Later,
> Andrew Mullhaupt
Well stated.

My feeling is that at the current time there are more successful
SA real codes (consider VLSI layout and routing) than GA. In applications
where the points in the configuration space are huge it is more of a
"challange" to get a GA to run.

The newer GA literature is catching up in volume and it is usually
easier to manage the massive parallelization of GA code over SA code.

john
-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John A. Kapenga                   Department of Computer Science
Ma Bell:  (616)387-5657           Western Michigan University
Internet: john@cs.wmich.edu       Kalamazoo, MI 49008