13. Learning: Genetic Algorithms 

Ban Ma so Sad.. he seems good person..

‘GOD-guided & the reincarnating God-incarnate led (Co)Evolution’: chaos theory, accretion. Population I star. Abiogenesis, life 4.6+ billion-years-old, directed panspermia/seeded, data transfer, Earth 4.54 byo & life on Earth 4.2 byo, Moon’s giant-impact 4.4 bya, Earth’s rotation & tilt, LARGE moon affects stability & tides. Galactic habitable and Goldilocks Zones/near-circular orbit, Van Allen belts. Volcanoes. DNA & RNA. Bony fish 500 million-years-old, land animals 428 myo, Pangaea(7), spontaneous order, intelligent design, complexity, catastrophism/asteroid 66 mya, viruses, bipeds 6 myo & humans 2.8 myo, purpose, decisions, nonrandom mating & genetic drift. Homo sapiens/Neanderthals/Y-chromosomal Adam 300,000 years ago & Mitochondrial Eve 160 kya, Mind’s Big Bang 50 kya & farming 12 kya, altruism, empathy, morality, ‘follow-da-leader’, ET intervention (Eden 6 kya) & founder (Fod.) effect. - Seal #1b of the 7seals.blogspot.com This has triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is not the ‘end of the world‘ - it‘s the return of the Christ and Albert Einstein reincarnated.

@@BradWatsonMiami hi brad, you might be watching the wrong courses..

@@BradWatsonMiami F off, there is no god

And 3 years after your comment he is still teaching people interesting things ! There is something amazing in that ! In my case he is even reaching to Belgium to teach me something new :P

Hi Luis, I’m interested in knowing the details as I want to do something with genetic algorithms also in go. How do I reach you?

It's just taken from evolution

Ohh buddy, here in the USA we watch Indian Professors on RU-vid to explain us things that our professors are not able to, so you guys have talent for teaching, too. But you are right this Professor in particular, is extraordinary at teaching things.

Yes NPTEL is too boring to watch these are atleast intresting

@@TheDjarto Lamest joke ever. Which Indian professors do you watch, son? Speak for yourself. No-one does that, not even Indians.

@@JthElement ohh plenty of them, not a joke. I no longer have a need to watch academic material but the guy I remember is Abdul Bari

He's explaining the concept from its fundamentals, that way the students can understand not only the simple concept, but how that concept was formed. It's kind of like a math teacher writing a proof for a theorem, and explaining what the logic is between each step. Sure, you can use the equation all you want, but you won't know if you've made a fundamental error unless you know the fundamentals.

Some Random Guy Reading your comment makes me shaking my head.

Me too

I think they got Spielberg in to do it.

x xenocide :D

‘GOD-guided & the reincarnating God-incarnate led (Co)Evolution’: chaos theory, accretion. Population I star. Abiogenesis, life 4.6+ billion-years-old, directed panspermia/seeded, data transfer, Earth 4.54 byo & life on Earth 4.2 byo, Moon’s giant-impact 4.4 bya, Earth’s rotation & tilt, LARGE moon affects stability & tides. Galactic habitable and Goldilocks Zones/near-circular orbit, Van Allen belts. Volcanoes. DNA & RNA. Bony fish 500 million-years-old, land animals 428 myo, Pangaea(7), spontaneous order, intelligent design, complexity, catastrophism/asteroid 66 mya, viruses, bipeds 6 myo & humans 2.8 myo, purpose, decisions, nonrandom mating & genetic drift. Homo sapiens/ Neanderthals/Y-chromosomal Adam 300,000 years ago & Mitochondrial Eve 160 kya, Mind’s Big Bang 50 kya & farming 12 kya, altruism, empathy, morality, ‘follow-da-leader’, ET intervention (Eden 6 kya) & founder (Fod.) effect. - Seal #1b of the 7seals.blogspot.com This has triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is not the ‘end of the world‘ - it‘s the return of the Christ and Albert Einstein reincarnated.

Really? I got the distinct impression that he was. From his statement that we don't know how species evolved one can see he never read or understood Darwin's "Origin of Species". Later he feels compelled to ask the unrelated question of "where does the credit lie" and answer that it is with the designer. These are hallmarks of a creationist. Sorry. The natural environment is a billion times more rich in solutions than any simulated environment. He is right about these algorithms being simple (or "naive", as he put it). There is no change to the length of the genes or any possible alternate application of any gene other than what the fitness function checks for. In biology the only fitness function is "can you breed successful breeders" not caring at all what solutions one employs to that end. Anything goes... including genes that do nothing at all but get passed on with mutations and exploring the unknown space of novel parts to add to the genotype. "Don't know how species evolved?" Give me a fucking break.

RazorX53 *" "Naive" has a specific meaning in this context."* I thought I pretty much covered that pretty thoroughly in my post. Didn't I? Sorry, his ending was even more damning. Yes he does credit the richness of the solution space where damned near anything can address the challenges, But to not realize it's simply the interaction of a non-program (the incessant iterations of filtering of variants) that does the job. Why else would he need to credit a programmer rather than the inherent math of accumulating beneficial new genes?

Unfortunately i too believe that this guy is a creationist... hope i'm wrong.

Why do you care if he is a creationist? He is a great lecturer regardless.

John L. Obviously because he does not grok the subject.

So that he can see their names. He sometimes calls the students by their names in the lecture hall.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_algorithm_applications

The real life applications are too many to count.

‘GOD-guided & the reincarnating God-incarnate led (Co)Evolution’: chaos theory, accretion. Population I star. Abiogenesis, life 4.6+ billion-years-old, directed panspermia/seeded, data transfer, Earth 4.54 byo & life on Earth 4.2 byo, Moon’s giant-impact 4.4 bya, Earth’s rotation & tilt, LARGE moon affects stability & tides. Galactic habitable and Goldilocks Zones/near-circular orbit, Van Allen belts. Volcanoes. DNA & RNA. Bony fish 500 million-years-old, land animals 428 myo, Pangaea(7), spontaneous order, intelligent design, complexity, catastrophism/asteroid 66 mya, viruses, bipeds 6 myo & humans 2.8 myo, purpose, decisions, nonrandom mating & genetic drift. Homo sapiens/Neanderthals/Y-chromosomal Adam 300,000 years ago & Mitochondrial Eve 160 kya, Mind’s Big Bang 50 kya & farming 12 kya, altruism, empathy, morality, ‘follow-da-leader’, ET intervention (Eden 6 kya) & founder (Fod.) effect. - Seal #1b of the 7seals.blogspot.com This has triggered The Apocalypse/Revelation which is not the ‘end of the world‘ - it‘s the return of the Christ and Albert Einstein reincarnated.

@@BradWatsonMiami ..... nani?

Sarcasm? You only need to spend 10 min reading through the wiki page for Genetic Algorithm.

I guess, He tries to tell that algorithm is not perfect and not able to provide precise solutions every time, because it is a metaheuristic algorithm. But what GA provide is the possibilities of solutions that human can not even imagined

🤣🤣🤣🤪😎

Thanks for your note! We've update the caption.

hello,Yu Wang.I don't know it.But I want know the parameters Pc. Can you help me if you find the Pc value please? Thanks u in advance.

actually it's slightly more than 3 years out of date

@@fuzzypenguino it's slightly more than 5 years out of date now

Indeed. The answer, and its utility, depends on how well the question is framed. That simulation was more a 'hockey fight' than a general environment with a need for food built in.

It's a freely chosen probability, 0 < Pc

theEyE no it won't be greater just try it. let Pc be 0.3 P1 = 0.7^0 * 0.3 = 0.3 P2 = 0.7^1 * 0.3 = 0.21 P3 = 0.7^2 * 0.3 = 0.147 P4 = ... (1-Pc) will be greater than Pc, but smaller than 1 and than you multiply by pc and the result will be smaller than both factors.

Wischenbart Christian By Pn i was referring to the last probability. Let's say there are 4 individuals in your population. If you choose Pc = 0.3, you would have: P1 = 0.3 P2 = 0.21 P3 = (1-Pc)^(3-1) = 0.7^2 = 0.49 Thus P3 > P2. In the general case, let K be the number of individuals in your population, and Pc < 0.5. Pk-1 = (1-Pc)^(n-2) * Pc and Pk = (1-Pc)^(n-1) = (1-Pc)^(n-2) * (1-Pc). Because Pc < 0.5 => (1-Pc) > 0.5 => Pk>Pk-1

So did you know the Pc value?

because the next generation values are based on the original values, so they will be similar to the original values and might get stuck into a local maximum. You mutate them to try o get out of local maximum. Like imagine if all the random original values were 1, you would only get 1s in the next generation without the mutation.

@@fsy14 yeah ,i don't know what i was thinking

I assume you mean 'few' as opposed to 'little'. They're normal size. But, it's because MIT is a highly competitive school with about 11k students not 30k. This is a specialized class for undergrads and MIT is 60% grad students. There are many courses to take and many interests people pursue. MIT also wants a good student to faculty ratio.

InfiniteUniverse88 Because on a simulation you want your whole population to be genius and entrepreneurs, the world is full of ordinary people, but you can't afford having a simulation that have 7billion entities, and just a few are extraordinary. Thats why he said it is naive.

You can find lot of gui based genetic algorithms on RU-vid

please , give me some link of this software.

Hasanul Islam - Why not create your own?

John David Deatherage How are you sure you won't take out the other top ones when you reduce the population?Newbie here

My population is a 2d array. the 0 column is the genetic string, the 1 column is the fitness score of the 0 column. If your population is 200, then delete by fitness score < than the average fitness score. The remaining population (100) is the most fit of the origonal 200. The question is how to recombine the 100 to produce a new generation that improves the fitness score without losing diversity? If you recombine all 100, 100 times, that creates a new population of 10,000. Now calculate the fitness score of the top 1% and eliminate the rest. You're back to a population of 100 but that new population has a dramatically better fitness score. I'm concerned that I'm trapping the evolution in a sort of local minima / maxima sort of thing.....

That's the concept of genetic drift, is it not? where you're having a bottleneck effect occur every generation, and not using a natural selection based algorithm that would include 'inclusive fitness' and regular fitness to the number of offspring produced.

Well real populations don't breed across the population. And it would be too time consuming.

+Morphius he believes in chocolates as good soft drug before lectures and quizes.. can you blame him? lol.

This tutor didn't even go over a fitness FUNCTION

J O most of the time, negative fitness means: "you did worst than doing nothing"

J O No, it is dying before reprodutive age.

no, a fitness of zero is not leaving any offspring after you die. a negative fitness is taking more of the genetic material that you share with others out of the world, most likely through killing/being the reason for a net loss in family members.

realize that fitness is just an arbitrary function that you set yourself, there is no fundamental "meaning" behind a fitness being positive versus negative.

Once again, it's an algorithm based on hill climbing. Some of the hill does have that deep valley that might be negative.

Classes aren't often place where people feel that it's appropriate to laugh. I've been in classes where professors do joke and have great energy. We don't raucously cheer or anything, but we smile and chuckle quietly. And I'd like to think the professor appreciates it.

People laugh towards the end of the video ;)

+Galaxy Spirals really? no way!

Galaxy Spirals - This is not biology. this is algorithms programmed to evolve.

Lunasyke erm...these algorithms were inspired by darwins theory of evolution and natural selection and other biological facts? So yes, biology is just as important as computer science.

How would you present it?

there are tons of other videos on youtube describing everything he does much faster more accurately and in a much more interactive way but i guess this is a lecture and he's just doing his job whereas most of the youtube videos on this subject were made to be online

link please?

Anti Matter Dynamite I agree that he looks like he is bored all the time. But i think he's explaining the concept of the lecture step by step very well, especially to someone who has never taken it before, or haven't understood it.

i guess he's appealing to an audience that has no idea what he's talking about then