 
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:57:24 -0400 |
| MIME-version: |
1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Content-transfer-encoding: |
7bit |
| Comments: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I mean that if an individual returns NaN, then set it to a very poor
fitness. Try printing out a note whenever this happens, and you'll see
that very quickly NaN-generating individuals disappear from the
population.
Sean
On Jul 25, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Steve Butcher (Steve-O) wrote:
> Sean,
>
> Thanks for the reply...I got the gist of most of it. However, your
> parting comment was a bit cryptic to me. Could you elaborate?
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
> On Jul 25, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Sean Luke wrote:
>
>> The simpler solution is to set NaN and infinity to very bad function
>> sets. They tend to get weeded out rapidly.
>>
|
|
|
