Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [GP] Solution to major problem in GP

Expand Messages
  • Dan Costelloe
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 1 1:34 AM
      On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Martin Sewell wrote:

      > At 18:14 29/09/2002 +0200, Mattias Fagerlund wrote:
      > > > I invented a new evolutionary algorithm that makes GP
      > > > completely obsolete.
      > >
      > >Oooh, completely obsolete, eh? Then what are you still doing on the GP
      > >mailinglist, visiting dinosaurs?
      > Marketing...badly.
      > Martin
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > genetic_programming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Dan Costelloe
      apologies for that last mail: accidental -dan
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 1 1:36 AM
        apologies for that last mail: accidental

      • Eric Johnson
        On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:34:17 +0100 ... For what it s worth, I think most researchers place greater value in peer reviewed papers than what is in books. At
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 3 1:56 PM
          On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:34:17 +0100
          "Candida Ferreira" <candidaf@...> wrote:

          > In fact, except for some papers already submitted, I intend
          > not to publish papers anymore. All the new developments made to
          > GEP will appear very soon in my book.

          For what it's worth, I think most researchers place greater
          value in peer reviewed papers than what is in books. At least
          with a peer reviewed paper in a journal, you know that someone
          competent has read the paper and found it worthwhile.

          > In the 17 years or so GP is around nothing similar was done
          > while one person alone implemented all these things in GEP
          > in less than three months.

          In nearly all cases that I've seen claims like this, the person
          making them was a kook. I'm not saying you are a kook, it's
          just that the remark is very similar to ones of people who are
          convinced they are the only ones in the world who know the TRUTH.

          For example, one kook used to spend much time posting messages
          on a neuroscience Usenet newsgroup claimed to be the world's
          foremost mathematician, physicist, and neuroscientist. He came
          up with some nonsensical conjecture about how the brain works.
          (It was clear he wasn't much of a neuroscientist when he claimed
          that the neurofibrillary tangles found in Alzheimer's disease
          were tangles of neurons.) But he always made such claims about
          how great his work was and how everyone else was wrong.

          In other words, most of the time someone makes such claims, they
          may safely be ignored.

          And sometimes, it is from someone new in a field that does not
          understand the field well enough, yet.

          But every once in a while, the claims are true. But it can
          take a while for everyone to distiguish these people from the

          It helps to avoid being perceived as a possible kook.

          Eric Johnson
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.