

Fruit fly nervous system: new solution to fundamental computer network problem - ca98am79
http://www.kurzweilai.net/fruit-fly-nervous-system-provides-new-solution-to-fundamental-computer-network-problem?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=d5f5bc2866-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email

======
6ren
Adjacent cells might self-select, but you can adjust the probability of self-
selection to lower this risk as much as you like. Once selected, the cell owns
the adjacent cells, by inhibiting their self-selection. (Maybe the inhibitor
spreads further over time?). As self-selection continues, any gaps are filled
in.

It reminds me of git's hashes. There's no absolute guarantee that different
objects will have different hashes (since there are more possible objects than
hashes), but it's pretty good in practice (and I guess/hope git has a
secondary check for collisions). I really don't like these kinds of algorithms
- they are just _wrong_ \- but I have to admit they work pretty well, by
taking a likely guess instead of working it out exactly. eg ethernet also uses
randomnness.

~~~
sophacles
This claim of wrongness is a pretty large claim. Care to back it up? (e.g.
define wrong)

~~~
6ren
It's not meant to be a claim at all: the italics were meant to convey a sense
of wrongness, that it feels wrong, not that it's actually wrong. Like noticing
that a dog's "knee" bends the "wrong" way (that joint actually corresponds to
our ankle). Or like fractions of bits, as in Arithmetic Coding. It's just
_wrong_. How can you have a fraction of a bit!? Ridiculous! (note: my masters
involved arithmetic coding; I actually do understand it). Another one is an
existence proof, as opposed to a constructive proof (ie. where you demonstrate
that something must exist, without actually constructing it).

joeyo's right: non-deterministic. It doesn't actually _nail_ the problem, it
just "usually" works out "OK". Although, you can prove things about it, like
how often it works, and how well. And that's very useful. Actually, I think
it's to do with the algorithm not embodying a perfect solution, but rather a
method for arriving at the solution. It's an engineering "how-to" hack, rather
than a science "what-is". _EDIT_ ie. a _heuristic_

Note my explanation of the algorithm, including a way to "lower this risk as
much as you like", which is saying that it does work, within tolerances. Any
interpretation of "wrong" could take that context into account.

~~~
sophacles
Well, that is much clearer, thanks :)

------
onteria
Here is the original story from Carnegie Mellon University on the topic:

[http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2011/January/jan13_fruitflyn...](http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2011/January/jan13_fruitflynetwork.shtml)

------
joshrule
Here's the paper's abstract:
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/183.abstract>

Here's the supplemental materials:
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6014/183/suppl/DC1>

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper?

------
tieTYT
This article desperately needs a diagram.

------
JoeAltmaier
Requires all selection to be synchronized - may be difficult to implement in a
dynamic evolving network e.g. the internet.

------
TheSOB88
Cool algorithm. Does it produce as effective an MIS?

