<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>robots.net blog for stokes</title>
    <link>http://robots.net/person/stokes/</link>
    <description>robots.net blog for stokes</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <generator>mod_virgule</generator>
    <pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:10:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:06:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>19 Dec 2005</title>
      <link>http://robots.net/person/stokes/diary.html?start=0</link>
      <guid>http://robots.net/person/stokes/diary.html?start=0</guid>
      <description>I feel like a cat watching squirrels on the other side of a&#xD;
window; stories have been posted about genetic programming&#xD;
and Java on microcontrollers, yet I can't comment on them.&#xD;
&#xD;
&lt;p&gt; One article started with the assertation that programs&#xD;
derived via genetic programming are highly efficient. This&#xD;
is, for the most part, flatly incorrect. Genetically-derived&#xD;
programs are typically bafflingly complex with all sorts of&#xD;
redundancy and indirect mechanisms that would make Rube&#xD;
Goldberg proud. What genetic programming is good for is&#xD;
producing solutions to problems that you don't know how to&#xD;
solve yourself, but&#xD;
can tell a correct solution from an incorrect one. &#xD;
&#xD;
&lt;p&gt; Although, I suppose if program run-time were one of the&#xD;
factors considered in evaluating a program's 'fitness,' you&#xD;
could evolve for efficiency. I don't know what that would do&#xD;
to the number of iterations required to find a solution,&#xD;
however.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
