Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> We are selecting for the maximally pathological machines.

This is not quite right. We're selecting for maximally long-running (or mark-producing, etc) programs. Whether those programs turn out to be "pathological" in some sense is an open question, and a question that can only be answered (to a limited extent) by observing and analyzing actual champion machines. Apriori, there's nothing we can say about what a champion program will do or what its code will be like. The Spaghetti Code Conjecture says that these champion programs will tend to be complicated. I have argued in the past that this may not be the case. It's entirely possible that the code of a champion program will be written more or less straightforwardly, and its long-running-ness comes from executing some bizarre and exotic mathematical function.

Actually, I think the more likely outcome is that some champions will be spaghetti and some will be clean. If they were all spaghetti or all clean, then that fact could be exploited to speed up the search process by discarding all programs not matching the property. And that sounds too good to be true, so it probably isn't. Maybe BB(8) champion is clean, BB(9) is spaghetti, etc, and there are no reliable trends.






"Actually, I think the more likely outcome is that some champions will be spaghetti and some will be clean."

Ah, now, that's thinking with pathologies.


Clean code isn't the same as clean behavior/output, though. A Collarz calculator would have rather unclean output.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: