Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperialist competitive algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:42, 30 July 2016

Revision as of 21:38, 30 July 2016

Line 44:

So if there is any criterion that classifies ICA in "metaphor-inspired metaheuristic cruft" we should have it first, before making any decision. [[Special:Contributions/66.75.251.213|66.75.251.213]] ([[User talk:66.75.251.213|talk]]) 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/209.203.71.82|209.203.71.82]] ([[User talk:209.203.71.82|talk]]) 03:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Other comments==

I added these comments to [[User_talk:Ruud_Koot|User talk:Ruud Koot]] who suggested the AfD. Then I realized that there are some general points here that can help with the decision about AfD for this page. So I am sharing the comments here too.

:"''Hi Ruud! Thaks for your work on making Weikipedis better. I saw your [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imperialist_competitive_algorithm|AfD]] and added my comments. Actually, what you are doing is basically right for the majority of these algorithms. However, we should note that there are many algorithms that their problem is not being inspired from nature. There is a deeper problem. The source of inspiration actually is not an optimization process in nature. It is like getting inspiration from cats to design airplanes that fly. The problem is not the inspiration and metaphor itself. The problem is forcing a fake metaphor that actually does not do optimization itself. So if you are addressing the issue, it should not be just calling anything inspired as "nature-inspired cruft" and deleting it. Because with this labeling, it seems that the problem is inspiration from nature, not the ignorance of people who use birds as a model to design cars and cats to design the airplanes.''

:''If you work in the area of evolutionary computation, you will easily notice that majority of the so-called "nature-inspired" algorithms are not really based on a correct and valid metaphor. The problem is NOT that they are using a metaphor. The bigger problem is that they are not based on a right (remarkable) metaphor, and this is the main problem. If we attack every work just because it is "nature-inspired" then we will create a dark situation where good and bad inspirations will be inseparable. So the attack code should be "fake-inspiration" and "wrong-inspiration" not the phrase "nature-inspired". Take the so-called "Cuckoo search" as an example. Is the process described a real optimization process indeed in nature that can be used to design an algorithm? Or the Water Drops. What kind of optimization is behind the Water drops in nature that can be used to create an optimization algorithm? Not at all, and the problem is exactly at this point. The same story with Harmony Search which is using something that has closed-form mathematical solution (Wave Equation) as the source of inspiration. In the majority of these papers, the metaphors are fake (forced) or are just renaming of previously proposed ones.''

:''I added my ideas to the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Imperialist_competitive_algorithm|AfD]] page of Imperialist Competitive Algorithm, where by defining a set of criteria, I oppose the deletion of the article, exactly for the same reasons I explained here. Please take a look at the discussion and add your comments and reasons behind your suggestion.''

:''Thank you for your work. I believe what you do is great and is something that needed to be done even a few years ago. But we just need to make sure that a good measure is defined to make sure that being "nature-inspired" is not the reason these papers are deleted. The reason is that they are NOT truly inspired from nature.''"

Hope this helps with the decision.

[[Special:Contributions/66.75.251.213|66.75.251.213]] ([[User talk:66.75.251.213|talk]]) 21:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)