On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:00 AM, PerPlex Ed <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edperplex@yahoo.com">edperplex@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Since the number of instruction is 2 order of magnitude bigger than<br>
then number of all possible kinds of ephemeral random constants (which is<br>
the number of activated "value types"), I get code that will fail in most<br>
of the cases because the instructions have no inputs on the stack.<br>
So this can't be the correct procedure. How do I have to read that?<br><br></blockquote><div><br>It sounds like you don't have anything on the stacks at the beginning of your program, which should not be the case. At the bare minimum, both the Exec and Code stacks should contain the program itself, and any other inputs should be pushed onto their respective stacks. For example, if you are running a floating point symbolic regression problem with input x, x should be pushed onto the Float stack before execution.<br>
<br>Another problem you may be having is that it appears that you are not constraining the instruction set in any way. Though not strictly necessary, it often speeds up the evolutionary process to restrict Push to only instructions that may be necessary during evolution. For example, if you are running a problem that deals with boolean satisfiability, it doesn't help to have float or int instructions in your instruction set. <br>
<br>-Tom<br></div></div>