RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Latching, Am I doing this wrong?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Goffr



Posts: 14
Joined: Feb. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2009,03:18   

As per the UD thread, from the Demski paper:
           
Quote
E. Partitioned Search
Partitioned search [12] is a “divide and conquer” procedure best introduced by example. Consider the L = 28 character phrase

METHINKS?IT?IS?LIKE?A?WEASEL. (19)

Suppose that the result of our first query of L = 28   characters is

SCITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SAM. (20)

Two of the letters {E, S} are in the correct position. They are shown in a bold font. In partitioned search, our search for these letters is finished. For the incorrect letters, we select 26 new letters and obtain

OOT?DENGISEDESEHT?ERA?NETSIL. (21)

Five new letters are found, bringing the cumulative tally of discovered characters to {T, S,E, ?,E, S,L}. All seven characters are ratcheted into place. The 19 new letters are chosen, and the process is repeated until the entire target phrase is found.


So Demski's program jumps from:
SCITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SAM
to
OOT?DENGISEDESEHT?ERA?NETSIL
in 1 generation. There is only 1 child, and it in no way represents the parent sentence.

In my understanding of Dawkins' program, there is no ratcheting of each correct charater, nor does it randomly select new characters for every incorrect character. In Dawkins' program there is a only a low chance of  each letter mutating (determinded by the search parameters), so nearly all stay the same and the children represent the parent almost exactly. Each and every letter may mutate, there is no latching in this model. There are multiple children each generation (each with their own mutations) and the one that matches most closely the target phrase is selected.

For example. The parent phrase:
SCITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SAM
will have 'x' number of children (determined by the search parameters, here 8):
SCITAMREFN?IYRANOITULOVE?CAM
SCITFMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SVM
SCITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOIE?SAM
SCITAMROFN?IYRANOITGGOVW?SAM
SEITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SAM
SCITAWEOFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SCM
SRITAMROFN?IYRANOITUROVQ?SAM
SCITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOQE?SAP

The sentence that most resembles the target sentence will be chosen for the next generation. Here it would be the 5th child, as it has 3 matching letters.
SEITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SAM

Compare Demski's 1st & 2nd generation vs the Dawkins model:

Dembski:
SCITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SAM
OOT?DENGISEDESEHT?ERA?NETSIL

Dawkins:
SCITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SAM
SEITAMROFN?IYRANOITULOVE?SAM

In Dawkins model the Parent and Child remain almost the same, apart from minor mutations. Demski's changes completely. Obviously there's been a major screw up in Dembski's understanding of how the Weasel program is supposed to work, and for some reason no-one on the ID side can see this.

I don't get how they don't it. How can they be so completely wrong on this, and remain wrong on it for so many years?

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2009,08:33   

This same issue was pointed to the people responsible for a Monash U. web page on Weasel, and they corrected thenselves. Dembski is obstinate on the issue for some obscure psychlogical reason.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2009,14:09   

Quote
I don't get how they don't it. How can they be so completely wrong on this, and remain wrong on it for so many years?

I suppose the same way they kept insisting that the 2nd law of thermodynamcis somehow blocks evolution without blocking growth and reproduction. Or that stuff about the moon receding so fast that it must have left Earth a few thousand years ago. Or the thing about the Earth's magnetic field decreasing in strength. Or the one about the amount of salt in the oceans. Or any number of other things.  

Henry

  
Goffr



Posts: 14
Joined: Feb. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2009,03:48   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 22 2009,14:09)
 
Quote
I don't get how they don't it. How can they be so completely wrong on this, and remain wrong on it for so many years?

I suppose the same way they kept insisting that the 2nd law of thermodynamcis somehow blocks evolution without blocking growth and reproduction. Or that stuff about the moon receding so fast that it must have left Earth a few thousand years ago. Or the thing about the Earth's magnetic field decreasing in strength. Or the one about the amount of salt in the oceans. Or any number of other things.  

Henry

Looking further into this, it's even wierder as it looks as though Demski has discovered the right solution but maintains his old standpoint. For example, at his Evolutionary Infomatics site he originally says this:
http://www.evoinfo.org/WeaselWare.html
 
Quote
In the search proposed by Dr. Dawkins, letters are chosen randomly.  For each letter, we can envision spinning a roulette wheel and randomly selecting a letter.  Once a letter hits at a location, we keep it.  For incorrect letters, we spin the roulette wheel again.  We will call this use of the divide and conquer oracle a "partitioned search"


This is followed up on the next page with a GUI description and pictures of his WeaselWare software, which only shows the Partitioned, Deterministic and Random searches.
http://www.evoinfo.org/WeaselDescription.html

However on the GUI page it shows a clearly updated version of the program with what looks like the correctly programmed "Proximity Reward Search".

From my carefully crafed search for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX it's noticable that there isn't any latching, as line 24 shows a loss of an X from the middle of phrase.

1. DSUQEYMVZURKHRSVSSFELQYHNPX
2. DSUQEYMVXURKHRSVSSFELQYHNPX
3. DSUQEYMVXURKQRSVISFELXYHNPX
4. DSUXEIMVXURKQRSVISFELXYHNPX
5. DSUXXIMVXURKURSVISFELXLHNPX
6. DSSXXIMVXURKURSVISFEBXLHNPX
7. DSSXXIMVXURKURSVISFEBXLHNPX
8. DSSXXIMVXURKWRSVISFEBXLHNPX
9. DSSXXIMVXTRKWRSVISBEBXLHNPX
10. DSSXXIMVXTRKWRSVISBXBXLHNPX
11. DSSXXIMVXTRKWRSVISBXBXLMNPX
12. DXSXXIMVXTRKWRSVISBXBXLMNPX
13. DXSXXIMVXTRKWRSVISBXBXLMNXX
14. DXSXXIMVXTRXWXSVMSBXBXLMNXX
15. DXSXXEMVXTRXWXSVMSBXBXLMNXX
16. DXSXXEMVXTRXWXXVMSBXBXLMNXX
17. DXSXXEMVXTRXWXXVMSBXBXLMNXX
18. DXSXXEMVXTRXWXXVMSBXBXLMXXX
19. DXSXXEMVXTRXWXXVMSBXBXLMXXX
20. DXSXXEMVXXRXWXXTMSBXBXLMXXX
21. DXSXXEMVXXRXWXXTMSBXBXLMXXX
22. DXSXXEMVXXRXWXXTMSBXBXLMXXX
23. DXSXXEDVXXRXWXXTMSBXBXLMXXX
24. DXSXXEDVXXRXXZXTMSXXBXLMXXX
25. DXSXXEDXXXRXXZXTMSXXBXLMXXX
26. DXSXXEDXXXRXXZXTMSXXBXLMXXX
27. DXSXXEDXXXRXXZXTMSXXBXLMXXX
28. DXSXXEDXXXRXXZXTMSXXBXLMXXX
29. DXSXXEDXXXRXXZXTMSXXBXLMXXX
30. DXSXXEDXXXRXXZXTMSXXBXLMXXX
31. DXSXXEDXXXXXXZXTMQXXBXLMXXX
32. DXSXXEDXXXXXXZXTMQXXBXLMXXX
33. DXSXXEDXXXXXXZXTMQXXBXLMXXX
34. MXSXXEDXXXXXXZXTMQXXBXLMXXX
35. MXSXXEDXXXXXXZXTMQXXBXXMXXX
36. MXSXXEDXXXXXXZXLMQXXBXXMXXX
37. MXSXXEDXXXXXXZXLMQXXBXXMXXX

So he knows the answer, but I don't understand why he insists on pushing the 'partitioned search' as anything relevant, especially since essentially it's entirely a fabrication of his own mind, and irrelevant to evolutionary thinking. Unless he didn't write the extra code for the informatics lab and is unaware of it?

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2009,13:29   

I believe it was Atom that coded the various "Weasel Ware" versions, including the "proximity reward search", which I recall was added after a discussion between him and r0b (sorry no linky).

dawkins-weasel-proximity-search-with-or-without-locking

ETA linky

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2009,23:40   

Last October, I informed "Atom" of the problem he inherited from Dembski of completely misrepresenting Dawkins' "weasel" program. He blew it off as if it were a trivial difference. Only later did he go so far as to address the issue in any detail.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  5 replies since Aug. 22 2009,03:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]