I begin with the set
of all possible information strings (genes) over an alphabet
, the set
of a real set of information strings doing some 'work' in some 'world'
, and the set
of the actual successful information strings. The set of genes is also called the Genotype.
Successful has to be understood in this context in relation to the presupposed world ; a behaving system
based on information strings from
will be 'successful' if it uses those information strings
from
which are labeled as 'successful'. In the case of a changing world
does this set of 'successful' information strings continuously change! This means that one has to include time
as a parameter in the description of these processes. Ideally we have a similarity
. The limits of
are given by
if
and
if
.
While we can define the set easily in theory and use it for the computation of some fitness values, this is not possible in 'reality'. A real system working with a 'real' set of information strings
has no direct knowledge about
. It does it's 'job' for some time and then it eventually will 'die'. Only an external observer could 'observe', that the 'offspring' of some of the real information strings are more numerous than others. This means that the important information is only available on a meta-level which is beyond the possibilities of simple populations of information strings.
The 'behavior' of these sets presupposes as a minimal working framework operations like 'evaluation' , 'reproduction'
, 'crossover'
as well as 'mutation'
repeatedly applied to the set of real information strings
as well as some world
as source of feedbacks
. This means we have to assume that there is an evaluation
as a meta-function operating on the world
and the population
with
as well as
with
.
This leads to a first network of concepts as follows:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(5.14) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(5.15) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(5.16) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(5.17) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(5.18) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(5.19) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(5.20) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(5.21) |
This leaves still in many respects a 'conceptual gap'. One open question is to the relationship between the similarity-function and the evaluation-function
.
Gerd Doeben-Henisch 2013-01-14