Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

pengvado comments on Evolutions Are Stupid (But Work Anyway) - Less Wrong

34 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 November 2007 03:45PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (67)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: pengvado 01 May 2012 10:42:06AM 3 points [-]

The formula is an approximation which is accurate for small values of s. Which is the domain we care about, since you don't get huge fitness gains from a single random mutation.

Comment author: [deleted] 01 May 2012 09:42:24PM *  0 points [-]

What transformation would make the formula correct? Like does it actually output odds? Or is it one of those convienient linearizations that melts down if you go to far?

Is there a formula for the approximate error?

Comment author: pengvado 02 May 2012 06:09:02AM 0 points [-]

I haven't found the full text of the paper it was derived in, but the discussion I did find says that it's a matter of approximating assumptions that were necessary to make the analysis tractable in the first place (to someone without a computer, since it was 1927), not a summary of a more complex closed-form solution. So yes, convenient linearizations. The more general case has probably been been analyzed since then, but I wouldn't know where to look.