Oleg Tchernyshyov- Still Ignorant of GAs
-
Yup ole Oleg is at it again, this time he thinks that just because the "inventors" of genetic algorithms called them genetic algorithms that means they are GENETIC algorithms.
Unfortunately those alleged "genetic" algorithms do not have anything to do with genetics!
The point being is that just because someone can name something, that alone doesn't mean the name fits. But oleg thinks just the opposite. He thinks that because they are called genetic algorithms then they are- genetics be damned I tell you!
The point?Why do I bring this oleg is spewing his nonsense, again and he just doesn't get it.
Yup ole Oleg is at it again, this time he thinks that just because the "inventors" of genetic algorithms called them genetic algorithms that means they are GENETIC algorithms.
Unfortunately those alleged "genetic" algorithms do not have anything to do with genetics!
The point being is that just because someone can name something, that alone doesn't mean the name fits. But oleg thinks just the opposite. He thinks that because they are called genetic algorithms then they are- genetics be damned I tell you!
The point?Why do I bring this oleg is spewing his nonsense, again and he just doesn't get it.
posted by Joe G @ 9:30 AM
47 Comments:
At 12:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
JOE GALLIEN, Professional idiot and eater:
Quote
Name ONE GA expert here- besides me (yes I have used and written them)
Quote
I wrote GAs. I debugged GAs and I have used GAs- and thortard is still a lying piece-of-shit.
Quote
YOU are unable to learn you stupid fucking jerk.
YOU have never written or used a GA in your sad, pathetic life, and it shows,
Quote
OK where do you live?
Quote
Look at it this way- Star Trek: Next generation- Lt Data was able to rewire his neuro networks due to the algorithms INSIDE OF HIM
At 1:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes RichTARD, you are also an ignorant piece of shit- wrt GAs and apparently everything else.
Did you have a point or did you just come here to make sure everyone knew that you are an ignorant piece of shit?
At 1:58 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
The point was to highlight your idiotic misconceptions of GAs.
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! YOU are ignorant of GAs so YOU can't highlight anything pertaining to them.
And just how does anything you posted highlight any misconceptions of GAs?
Obvioulsy you are too much of an idiot to actually make a case- as usual.
At 2:25 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Look at it this way- Star Trek: Next generation- Lt Data was able to rewire his neuro networks due to the algorithms INSIDE OF HIM"
IDIOT
At 3:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Of course they were INSIDE OF HIM.
Do you think that you inability to understand a CONCEPT means anything to me? IMBECILE...
But again-
And just how does anything you posted highlight any misconceptions of GAs?
Obvioulsy you are too much of an idiot to actually make a case- as usual.
At 3:29 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Look at it this way- Star Trek: Next generation- Lt Data was able to rewire his neuro networks due to the algorithms INSIDE OF HIM"
..Is nothing like a GA, Idiot. I see even Corny is tired of you now.
At 3:42 PM,
Joe G said…
So THAT is it? You just make some dumbass/ ignorant/ unsupported declaration and I am refuted?
BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA
Lt Data uses a search heursitic to solve a problem- GAs are a search heuristics designed to solve problems and Richie muffin-top says there ain't no correlation...
IMBECILE
At 3:43 PM,
Joe G said…
And it looks like Corny is tired of a few people: Lizzie, oleg and thortard included...
dumbass
At 3:45 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Lt Data uses a search heursitic to solve a problem"
Psssssttttt, Joe, He's not real. He's fiction - like most of your life and your GA coding abilities ;-)
At 3:51 PM,
Joe G said…
As I said- obviously you are too much of an imbecile to understand a CONCEPT.
So tell me, your inability to grasp a concept means what to me?
In what way does your inability to grasp a concept amount to a refutation of said concept?
dumbass
At 3:52 PM,
Joe G said…
So we have Oleg Tchernyshyov, too much of a coward to fend for himself, having ignorant Richie flailing away in his stead.
Isn't THAT special...
At 3:52 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Lt. Data (of fiction, like your achievements) has fuck all to do with GAs. GAs work on populations. DUR DUR DUR.
At 3:54 PM,
Joe G said…
The population, in Data's case, would be the population of circuits that make up his neural network.
As I said, you are an imbecile, and it shows.
At 3:56 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"The population, in Data's case, would be the population of circuits that make up his neural network"
WOW. SO STUPID.
Talk us through the mutation / selection / replication process Joe. You can fit the other foot in your mouth.
At 4:04 PM,
Joe G said…
The replication would be the various attempts to form the proper pathay(s)
The mutation would be the various changes to to those attempts and the selection would be the best pathway(s) to solve the problem.
As I said, obvioulsy you are a DUMBASS.
BTW assface- GAs are used to program FPGA's- field programmable gate arrays. And it can be for just ONE.
Again your ignorance of GAs, while entertaining, is not a refutation of anything I have said.
At 4:08 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What fantastic crock of shit!
genomically, what is encoded?
At 4:34 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Bonus JoeTard:
"
But yes the GAs that run us are inside of us. What is the alternative that all our functions "just happen" once we get the right chemicals together? Good luck testing that...
"
No fucking clue!
At 5:08 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes, Richie muffin-top, you have no fucking clue, and it shows.
And yes, all your posts amount to a crock of shit.
At 5:11 PM,
Joe G said…
genomically, what is encoded?
Everything required to make proteins, enzymes, RNAs, DNA- IOW everything your position cannot explain.
And just how does anything you posted highlight any misconceptions of GAs?
Obvioulsy you are too much of an idiot to actually make a case- as usual.
dumbfuck
At 5:14 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Wow, your FPGAs encode "Everything required to make proteins, enzymes, RNAs, DNA", tell me more, tubs!
At 5:52 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Now Richie can't even follow his own ignorance-driven drivel.
FPGAs don't have anything to do with your question of "genomically, what is encoded?", because as I told oleg the ignorant, only organisms have genomes.
With FPGAs GAs are used to search for the most efficient pathways required to perform the task.
At 6:00 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
And Joe shows his 'expertise':
"because as I told oleg the ignorant, only organisms have genomes."
Meanwhile, in reality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_(genetic_algorithm)
"In genetic algorithms, a chromosome (also sometimes called a genome)...."
YOU'RE A BIG FAT MULTI-CHINNED IDIOT, MAKING IT UP.
At 6:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Great, right back where we started with an evoTARD thinking that just because someone can name it "a chromosome" or "a genome" that means it really is.
Genetics (from Ancient Greek γενετικός genetikos, "genitive" and that from γένεσις genesis, "origin"),[1][2][3] a discipline of biology, is the science of genes, heredity, and variation in living organisms.[4][5]
At 6:07 PM,
Joe G said…
compare to what Richie was hiding:
In genetic algorithms, a chromosome (also sometimes called a genome) is a set of parameters which define a proposed solution to the problem that the genetic algorithm is trying to solve. The chromosome is often represented as a simple string, although a wide variety of other data structures are also used.
Just as I have been saying.
At 6:14 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
No Joe, you big fat liar. You said:
"because as I told oleg the ignorant, only organisms have genomes" because you're a bit fat know-nothing out of his depth making things up.
Wikipedia says:
"In genetic algorithms, a chromosome (also sometimes called a genome) is a set of parameters which define a proposed solution to the problem that the genetic algorithm is trying to solve. The chromosome is often represented as a simple string, although a wide variety of other data structures are also used."
Because it's written by experts who have a clue. Pleased we've settled that, I'm sure you'll find a new way to embarrass yourself. hardly surprising you're not familiar with the most basic GA terms.
At 6:15 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
And bonus TARDPOINTS for using "Genetics", not "Genome". Sorry, you can't cash those in for food, tubby.
At 6:29 PM,
Joe G said…
What a complete dumbass!
I am very familiar with the terms. But that does not mean that just because someone can call something a "genome" or a "chromosome" that is really is. It is more of a METAPHOR.
And the reason I posted about GENETICS is because we are discussing GENETIC algorithms, you fucking retard. Ya see, dipshit, THAT is the whole point of the OP.
But then again you are an imbecile who doesn't understand a fucking thing.
At 6:31 PM,
Joe G said…
IOW the inventors of the terms for GAs made it up, Richie.
dumbass
At 7:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
oh poor Joe, caught in a lie again. What a shocker!
Joe:
"Name ONE GA expert here- besides me (yes I have used and written them)"
"I wrote GAs. I debugged GAs and I have used GAs- and thortard is still a lying piece-of-shit"
Obviously such an 'expert' must know the most basic language and concepts of GAs?
Rich :
"genomically, what is encoded?"
"expert" Joe:
""because as I told oleg the ignorant, only organisms have genomes"
FAIL. UTTER BULLSHIT DISCOVERED FAIL.
How come I know more about GAs than you, Joe? How come you're not familiar with the most basic of terms.
But feel free to post some of your code to show me I'm wrong. Oh right, bullshitters don't do specifics.
DONT CRY INTO YOUR NACHOS FATTY.
At 8:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm, Richie, you don't know more about GAs than I do. You are obvioulsy a delusional faggot.
And as usual Richie has to lie to try to make a point- I am very familiar with the terminology. However dick-face Richie is vague with respect to his questions.
muffin-top cupcake:
"genomically, what is encoded?"
No specification, nothing to indicate what Richie dick-face was referring to. But dildo thinks it means something because he can be a vague prick and then use that vague-ness to move goalposts at will.
And no, I do not have any rights to post code that I wrote for a company some 15 years ago. I don't take that stuff home and keep it around. However anyone can google GAs and FPGAs or read SciAm's article "Evolving Inventions"(2003).
But again the evoTARD misses the whole point- the terminology is made-up. Genetics refers to biology.
dumbass
At 11:11 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Poor fatty got caught in a lie again. Didn't even know the basics, was pretending to be an expert. You should keep to hunting UFOs and watching Ghost Hunters, you dimwit.
At 3:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Poor lying Richie muffin-top. All he can do his dance his delusional dance because he is ignorant of everything except on how to be an asshole, which he excels.
Richie "knows" all he "knows" about GAs from reading wikipedia, and he can't even get that straight.
Keep hunting unicorns RichTARD...
At 3:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh, I can actually pony up some GA stuff, Joe and will, if you will first. But that would require specifics, and bluffers like you don't have them, fatboy.
At 4:07 PM,
Joe G said…
What the fuck does that even mean "pony up some GA stuff"?
You are a deluded asswipe, Richie. All you can do is make shit up and then declare I am refuted. All you have all bald assertions and false accusations.
And guess what? You can't even deal with the fucking topic.
You want to discuss GAs yet you refuse to stay on-topic and discuss that, which does pertain to GAs.
All you want to do is play imbecilic games, because you are an imbecile.
I have several blogs on GAs- feel free to pick one out, stay on-topic, and discuss it.
BTW all you are is a vague moron, you don't know what the word "specifics" means, so fuck off you lying freak.
At 4:28 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL@Joe!
the guys who tells people 'to google for phrases'! Bless you chubs.
You might want to learn THE BASICS of GAs before writing about them. You utterly embarrasing yourself over at TSZ highlights what a know-nothing you are.
Submit some psuedocode for a GA (if you can) and we can discuss.
At 7:17 PM,
Joe G said…
I know the basics. Just because you are a delusional faggot who can only spew bald assertions and false accusations doesn't mean what you spew holds any weight. IOW you don't have any evidence to support your obvious lies.
That said your posts here and everywhere prove that you are an ignorant fuck. You are an embarrassment to humans.
Youi can't stay on-topic. You can't produce any evidence to support anything you say. You are an out-of-context quoting delusional fuck.
BTW assface- googling phrases in one way to cure your ignorance. It proves information exists. Information that you just deny anyway.
But anyway, that you cannot stay on-topic proves that you don't know anything about GAs. Your responses here prove that you don't know anything about GAs.
You are a waste of skin. Deal with it.
At 2:31 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, clearly you know nothing about GAs - as evidenced by not knowing the basic terminology "genome" and by saying such batshit wrong things as this: "Joe G: How can the GA help the organism change its DNA if it isn’t internal to the organism?" *facepalm*
Or This:
"No- this is MY own- MINE and has nothing to do with Shappy- I have had this for years now."
I'll bet "Shappy" is delighted to have nothing to do with it.
Here's some more total miscomprehension:
"There isn’t anything in the definition of a genetic algorithm that prevents it from being inside of the organism, ie that mandates the GA be outside."
Joespasm:
"Why is having a GA inside of an organism, meaningless?
It would mean we are intelligently designed and that means we would be looking at a totally different kind of biology."
Joe doubles down on his bullshit:
"Jules Verne wrote some science-fiction- and we eventually did some of it, anyway."
Here's the little chubber not getting that mutations are random, but selection isn't:
"oleg- they may be random, in that any one can occur, but they are all directed towards the goal/ solution- that is the whole freaking purpose of the GA-> to find solutions and all mutations are directed toward that end"
Of course the whole thread is a hillarious testimony to Joe's stupidity - the typos increasing show his meltdown progressing:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=507&cpage=1#comments
Got any code, fatboy? Thought not. Fuck off you bluffer. ;-)
At 9:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie,
Clearly you are a delusional liar and a faggot.
I know the basic terminology. YOU just ask vague questions that don't pertain to anything.
"Joe G: How can the GA help the organism change its DNA if it isn’t internal to the organism?"
Answer the question. It is relevant.
And how is the following a miscomprehension?:
"There isn’t anything in the definition of a genetic algorithm that prevents it from being inside of the organism, ie that mandates the GA be outside."
Make a case as opposed to making bald assertions and false accusation like a little faggot.
"Why is having a GA inside of an organism, meaningless?
It would mean we are intelligently designed and that means we would be looking at a totally different kind of biology."
Yup and still nothing but mindless drivel from you in response.
Make a case asshole or admit that you are a lying fuck.
Richie:
Here's the little chubber not getting that mutations are random, but selection isn't:
"oleg- they may be random, in that any one can occur, but they are all directed towards the goal/ solution- that is the whole freaking purpose of the GA-> to find solutions and all mutations are directed toward that end"
I said they are random you ignorant faggot. And yes the selection in GAs in non-random but natural selection, a result, is random.
But anyway, that you cannot stay on-topic proves that you don't know anything about GAs. Your responses here prove that you don't know anything about GAs.
You are a waste of skin. Deal with it.
Richie, it is obvious that you are nothing but a fuck-head moron and a pathological liar. Add al that to your Captain Coward title...
At 9:48 AM,
Joe G said…
And still there are no genomes in GAs that humans write.
Just because someone can misname something and call it a "genome" doesn't mean it really is.
Richie and the evoTARDs are so fucking clueless that they think just because someone called an algorithm a "genetic" algorithm that means it is a genetic algorithm- gentics be damned. Well evoTARDs don't know anything about genetics so the don't know the difference- ignorance is bliss...
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
To recap- Richie ReTARDo comes here spewing ignorance and proves he is too stupid to understand a concept.
After that didn't go over too well, he exposed his ignorance by not understanding the "population" is the circuits to be used to solve the problem, nor did he understand the replication, mutation and selection part.
After I explained all that to him all he did was blurt and evoTARDgasm as if that helps his case.
So to distract from the fact that he is totally ignorant Richie asks a question that is just hanging there, not pertaining to anything.
When I answered Richie threw his usual evoTARDfit because that is the extent of Richie's "discussion" capabilities.
Fucking Richie faggot still hasn't even responded to the OP. That alone proves he is ignorant of GAs.
Respond to the OP or fuck off Richie.
You like to reference the skeptical zone- now I will treat you as Lizzie dumbass treated me. No off-topic comments allowed.
At 10:12 AM,
The whole truth said…
Hey joey, you say that you have written GAs. In what way were they genetic?
At 10:21 AM,
Joe G said…
The same way all GAs are, dumbass.
The funny part is we didn't call them GAs. And the only reason I call them that now is because that seems to be what they were according to the definition.
As I said in another forum obvioulsy some evoTARD made-up the name because the "theory" needs as much help as it can get, even if the "help" is misleading nonsense.
Not that you will understand any of that...
At 11:18 AM,
The whole truth said…
joey: "Genetics refers to biology."
Did the GAs you claim you have written, used, and debugged refer to biology? If not, why do you call them GAs? And if (with your definition of a GA in mind) they didn't refer to biology, you never really have written, used, or debugged any GAs, have you?
At 11:31 AM,
Joe G said…
I have written, used and debugged search heuristics that use replication, change and selection., ie genetic algorithms, even though the name is misleading.
As I said you are obviously too stupid to understand that simple concept.
At 11:36 AM,
The whole truth said…
But did they refer to biology? Did the things you used the so-called GAs on have a genome?
At 11:44 AM,
Joe G said…
You obviously have serious mental issues and should seek help.
Obvioulsy you are too retarded to understand what I post.
bye-bye
Post a Comment
<< Home