Posted on 05/08/2003 10:11:06 AM PDT by Nebullis
Happy
Mother's
Day!
It's just pointless disruption for disruption's sake. It only succeeds if you respond.
Blather on all you want, there is still no evidence of the 17 transistor circuit outperforming a specific patented theory. Your red herring won't work. Produce the evidence for the specific topic or slink away.
You made these statements
Are you not aware that pending patent applications cannot be searched, only granted patents?
According to my husband, who has been a patent examiner for 15 years, and is a Primary Examiner, you cannot search applications for pending patents.
You did not write.
Are you not aware that pending patent applications, in some cases, cannot be searched?
Nor did you write.
According to my husband, who has been a patent examiner for 15 years, and is a Primary Examiner, you cannot search applications for all pending patents.
It is pointless to you, because, of course, you cannot produce the evidence for the assertion that was made. That request is common. Back up what you assert. Now the question concerns specific circuits and a specific assertion. "Put up or shut up" is a common rejoinder. The fact that you pot shot from the sidelines is evidence of your lack of character.
Another pirouette! You are the one that mentioned patent applications first.
Why otherwise would you write the following erroneous statement?
Are you not aware that pending patent applications cannot be searched, only granted patents?
Boldly trying another red herring tack, are you?
Still with no, zip, zero, nada, evidence for the specific assertion made on specific circuits, in a specific article. I'm sure they have something but what is it? This is akin to the rapid speciating worms that didn't.
Almost funny, you need work on your patter!
No doubt you think the following is true despite the evidence that I produced.
... pending patent applications cannot be searched, only granted patents?
Okay, but the statement did not limit itself. In any case, the original topics of discussions were two. One involving the cubic function and a granted patent to a human designed circuit. This assertion was made by a poster
Deal with it. In this case, it made a cubic function generator circuit which outperforms the best that all electronic engineers were capable of producing in all the history of electronics.
The circuit at the top was patented in 2000, and is the current state of the art. The circuit at the bottom was produced by pure unaided evolution, and outperforms the human version.
I asked for evidence of this performance edge. None has been produced. I found the patent and examined the circuit and it involves 5 transistors and 4 diodes. The circuit used in the "runoff" has 9 transistors. Somebody changed something. Despite this not one graph comparing the two circuits has been produced here. I suspect that the performance edge is a paper product. Something that the emulating program has produced. Why do I surmise that? Because in evolving the circuit I doubt that each individual circuit was constructed in order to measure its performance of the cubic function. That would be impractical.
From the article ---A genetic programming run typically spawns a population of tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals that evolve over dozens or hundreds of generations. A weeklong run on a laptop computer is sufficient to produce half of the human-competitive results listed in the box on the preceding page; however, all six of the inventions patented after 2000 required more horsepower than that.
The second topic relates to the assertion that many patents have been issued for inventions produced by genetic programming. The same article that had the cubic function circuit in it also made mention of a patent application ---
We have filed a patent application that covers both the new rules and the new controller topologies. If (as we expect) the patent is granted, we believe that it will be the first one granted for an invention created by genetic programming.
This was in the article with the date of February 2003. Clearly, it has not been granted. It does not matter if it is still pending for it to be evidence that there are no patents for inventions created by genetic programming. That still leaves the ability to produce the evidence of many such inventions, but no one has done that.
They never try to evolve a "TUNABLE INTEGRATED ACTIVE FILTER" using rocks, ham sandwiches, and walnuts with a blow torch as the energy source. Ever wonder why?
There are genetic programming patents, but they involve genetic programming. There is even a recent application from L'Oreal that is so broadly written so that if the patent is granted they can charge anybody with patent infringement for any type of computed advice. They included genetic programming, soft programming, heuristic programming, and the kitchen sink. As to the genetic programming patents, they are for Koza's techniques and implementation of the genetic software.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.