No you didn't.
No "I" didn't, *what*? I didn't claim I *had* done anyting in the above discription. You made the request, someone else filled it, you blew it off. All I did was watch.
Trollish Behavior #15: Making weird non sequiturs to further confuse the discussion.
I have shown you that the circuit is not the one we have been talking about.
Trollish Behavior #16: Hairsplitting. So? The other, more documented circuit is still an example to be discussed, i.e. an evolutionary evolved circuit which exceeds the performance of the best human-designed one. And yet, rather than engage in a discussion about *that* one, you keep playing, "but it's not the same as the *first* one that was shown in a picture here, so I don't gotta talk about the other one, either..."
And, in anycase, I do not accept a paper only "assertion" (simulation) no more than I accepted your posted assertions.
Trollish Behavior 17: Nitpicking. Mathematical analysis of electronic circuits is good enough for human designers and the patent office, but it's not good enough for Andrew, who won't even discuss the implications of a circuit unless it can be "proven" that the hardware performance will equal the results of well-accepted industry-standard circuit simulators.
The rest of your garbage is not worthy of more than a glance.
Trollish Behavior #18: ...speaks for itself.
The SciAm article itself on the original evolved circuit pointed out The evolved circuit is clearly more complicated but also contains redundant parts, such as the purple transistor, that contribute nothing to its functioning.. The mentioned part is clearly unterminated.
Trollish Behavior #19: Nitpicking again.
Trollish Behavoir #20: Andrew's pretending that he wasn't specifically challenged to demonstrate that the "problem" he lists is actually as big a "problem" as he implies (i.e., one big enough to change the results in any meaningful way). That challenge again, lest he forget:
That's a nice speech, but you have failed to in any way demonstrate that the circuit in question rises to the level of having "unnecessary transistors floating around" (ooh, nicely specific, *cough*) to the point where it will "affect circuit performance" (another marvelously vague claim) at "high frequencies" (*how* high?) enough that it will, you vaguely imply, defeat the performance claimed by the authors. Stop playing word games, Troll. Demonstrate your implication, or admit you're just waving your hands. In your own words, this implication (it doesn't even rise to the level of a "claim") is still "hanging".
Trollish Behavior #21: Failing to respond to the challenge that he support his "it's important, really, I swear it" implication.
Trollish Behavior #22: Simply repeating his original unsupported gripe as if that somehow strengthens it in any way.
Solder 2 diodes back-to-back and see if you get a transistor.
Trollish Behavior #23: Twisting my words into a straw man version. I was speaking of, a transistor being internally constructed of "back-to-back diodes" (i.e., in a continuous mass of semiconductor), which is different from your new nonsense about "soldering" the leads of two diodes togther in series.
Troll yourself.
Trollish Behavior #24, playing "I know you are but what am I?"
Got anything better to add to the conversation? Oh, I know, how about actually addressing the implications of the research results instead of nit-picking every wild red herring you can think of as excuses for why you shouldn't have to?
You have not done much of "anyting"[sic] but blather on about trolling. To top it all off, when I provide the evidence that completely bury your replies you call it nit-picking. Hilarious. Even more hilarious is your weaseling after accusing me of doing such.
First I say a transistor is in a sense two diodes back-to-back in response to your implication that I lied about knowing that a transistor could be used as a diode. I also provided the evidence that I knew that use of a transistor. You continue your attempt at a red herring and Ad Hominem thusly --Not only "in a sense", Troll, but in actuality.. Then after I call you on that by the using the example of soldering 2 diodes back-to-back (an actuality), you produce this Twisting my words into a straw man version. I was speaking of, a transistor being internally constructed of "back-to-back diodes" (i.e., in a continuous mass of semiconductor), which is different from your new nonsense about "soldering" the leads of two diodes togther in series.. Do you know what in a sense means? What a Maroon you are.
You made hyperbolic assertions. You did not provide evidence backing up those assertions. Your name-calling, red herring distractions indicate your complete lack of substance.