Darwin@Home

[Nick Thompson]

Steve,

We must consider if we want the statements

"natural selection begets adaptation"

or

"the adapted organism is favorably selected"

to be analytical or contingent.   I.e., do we want them to be like 2 + 2 =
4, or do we want them to be like "steve Guerin has a red tie on today."

I prefer them to be contingent, which means of course that is possible to
imagine worlds in which natural selection does NOT produce adaptation and
worlds in which the adapted organism is NOT favorably.  

To make the truth of these statements contingent, adaptation has to be
defined in a way that is unconnected with the definition of natural
selection.  Adaptation cannot be defined as, "Whatever natural selection
produces."  nor can the adapted organism be defined as that organism that
has the most offspring.  How can we define adaptation and how can we
recognize the adapted organism without counting the number of its offspring

To answer this question I think we need to turn to the thinking of a much
abused and little known author who has defined adaptation as "natural
design".  Natural design is, roughly, "whatever properties of nature that
WOULD lead us to make attributions of intentional design except that we
know they arent."   What ARE those properties.    A sahib, that is the
problem.  
Unfortuately, nobody (except the aforementioned lonely thinker) has given
this problem any damn thought at all and the lonely thinking has been too
stupid to make much progress on it on his own.

I do know, though that a natural selection program that does not adapt in
some [other] sense is not doing evolution.  

Nick

Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson
Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
[hidden email]
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
 [hidden email]


> [Original Message]
> From: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

> Date: 1/10/2005 1:01:54 PM
> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
>
> Nick writes:
> > Do these models have adaptation?   Most models of this type that I have
> > been exposed to  have evolution and natural selection but not
> > ADAPTATION.
>
> Hmm, you may define "adaptation" in a more rigorous way than I.
>
> I consider natural selection to be a form of adaptation. Learning during

an

> agent's lifetime is another form of adaptation. And, manipulation of the
> environment, as in the indirect communication via pheromone fields in ant
> foraging, to be a third form of adaptation for an agent system.
>
> As a generality, I'd say most Alife models primary mechanism of adaptation
> is natural or artificial selection.
>
> However, Larry Yaeger's Polyworld, which is one of the models on the link,
> does include non-hereditary adaptation through Hebbian learning. From his
> paper (http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/Yaeger.ALife3.pdf):
>
> "PolyWorld brings together biologically motivated
> genetics, simple simulated physiologies and metabolisms, Hebbian learning

in
> arbitrary neural network
> architectures, a visual perceptive mechanism, and a suite of primitive
> behaviors in artificial organisms
> grounded in an ecology just complex enough to foster speciation and
> inter-species competition.
> Predation, mimicry, sexual reproduction, and even communication are all
> supported in a
> straightforward fashion. The resulting survival strategies, both
individual
> and group, are purely
> emergent, as are the functionalities embodied in their neural network
> "brains". Complex behaviors
> resulting from the simulated neural activity are unpredictable, and change
> as natural selection acts over
> multiple generations."
>
> Your point is interesting. I guess what constitutes an Alife model is
rather
> fuzzy. In the late 80s and early 90s I'd say ~70% of Alife models had
GA/GP
> mechanisms as central components. That said, tangentially related models
> like flocking, ant foraging models and machine learning models were also
> included in the conferences. Since the mid-90s, I think the meaning of
what

> constitutes a living system to the Alife community has pushed out from a
> naive application of neo-darwinist mechanism. Some would argue for the
> necessary presence of generalized thermodynamic work-cycles for an Alife
> system to be considered "alive". "Some" being me with a mouse in my pocket
> ;-)
>
> -S
> ________________________________________________________
> [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:25 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [FRIAM] RE: Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> >
>
> >
> > Just being annoying,
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > Clark University
> > [hidden email]
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> >  [hidden email]
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >    1. Darwin@Home (Stephen Guerin)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:27:13 -0700
> > > From: "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]>
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> > > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]>
> > > Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > >
> > > Biota.org is back up and promoting Darwin@Home.
> > > http://www.darwinathome.org/mission/index.html
> > >
> > > Some familiar Alife applications are adapting to it:
> > >
> > >   - Fluidium: Gerald De Jong's "tensegrity" structures. Nice example

of

> > JOGL
> > > and webstart
> > > I believe Owen passed around a link 6 months ago:
> > > http://fluidiom.sourceforge.net/
> > >
> > >   - SodaBot -> SodaRace
> > >
> > >   - Larry Yaeger's PolyWorld
> > >
> > >   - More at: http://www.darwinathome.org/teams/index.html
> > >
> > > -Steve
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________
> > > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Friam mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > >
> > >
> > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > > *************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > http://www.friam.org
> >
> >

[Russell Standish]

I'm not entirely sure I could give a precise definition of adaption
either, but it is clear that it differs from natural/artificial
selection. The Bedau-Packard activity stats (see the numerous papers
by Mark Bedau et al. on the subject) provides a measure of adaption,
and it is possible for evolutionary systems (systems with variation
and selection) to not experience adaption at all. The classic example
is an evolutionary system operating above the error threshold (aka
mutational meltdown).

Note that when the concept of fitness is present, adaption is rather
easy to define. However, not all evolutionary systems have a notion of
fitness - in particular most of the interesting ones don't.

                                    Cheers

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 02:19:54PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Steve,
>
> We must consider if we want the statements
>
> "natural selection begets adaptation"
>
> or
>
> "the adapted organism is favorably selected"
>
> to be analytical or contingent.   I.e., do we want them to be like 2 + 2 =
> 4, or do we want them to be like "steve Guerin has a red tie on today."
>
> I prefer them to be contingent, which means of course that is possible to
> imagine worlds in which natural selection does NOT produce adaptation and
> worlds in which the adapted organism is NOT favorably.  
>
> To make the truth of these statements contingent, adaptation has to be
> defined in a way that is unconnected with the definition of natural
> selection.  Adaptation cannot be defined as, "Whatever natural selection
> produces."  nor can the adapted organism be defined as that organism that
> has the most offspring.  How can we define adaptation and how can we
> recognize the adapted organism without counting the number of its offspring
>
> To answer this question I think we need to turn to the thinking of a much
> abused and little known author who has defined adaptation as "natural
> design".  Natural design is, roughly, "whatever properties of nature that
> WOULD lead us to make attributions of intentional design except that we
> know they arent."   What ARE those properties.    A sahib, that is the
> problem.  
> Unfortuately, nobody (except the aforementioned lonely thinker) has given
> this problem any damn thought at all and the lonely thinking has been too
> stupid to make much progress on it on his own.
>
> I do know, though that a natural selection program that does not adapt in
> some [other] sense is not doing evolution.  
>
> Nick
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> Clark University
> [hidden email]
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
>  [hidden email]
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> > Date: 1/10/2005 1:01:54 PM
> > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> >
> > Nick writes:
> > > Do these models have adaptation?   Most models of this type that I have
> > > been exposed to  have evolution and natural selection but not
> > > ADAPTATION.
> >
> > Hmm, you may define "adaptation" in a more rigorous way than I.
> >
> > I consider natural selection to be a form of adaptation. Learning during
> an
> > agent's lifetime is another form of adaptation. And, manipulation of the
> > environment, as in the indirect communication via pheromone fields in ant
> > foraging, to be a third form of adaptation for an agent system.
> >
> > As a generality, I'd say most Alife models primary mechanism of adaptation
> > is natural or artificial selection.
> >
> > However, Larry Yaeger's Polyworld, which is one of the models on the link,
> > does include non-hereditary adaptation through Hebbian learning. From his
> > paper (http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/Yaeger.ALife3.pdf):
> >
> > "PolyWorld brings together biologically motivated
> > genetics, simple simulated physiologies and metabolisms, Hebbian learning
> in
> > arbitrary neural network
> > architectures, a visual perceptive mechanism, and a suite of primitive
> > behaviors in artificial organisms
> > grounded in an ecology just complex enough to foster speciation and
> > inter-species competition.
> > Predation, mimicry, sexual reproduction, and even communication are all
> > supported in a
> > straightforward fashion. The resulting survival strategies, both
> individual
> > and group, are purely
> > emergent, as are the functionalities embodied in their neural network
> > "brains". Complex behaviors
> > resulting from the simulated neural activity are unpredictable, and change
> > as natural selection acts over
> > multiple generations."
> >
> > Your point is interesting. I guess what constitutes an Alife model is
> rather
> > fuzzy. In the late 80s and early 90s I'd say ~70% of Alife models had
> GA/GP
> > mechanisms as central components. That said, tangentially related models
> > like flocking, ant foraging models and machine learning models were also
> > included in the conferences. Since the mid-90s, I think the meaning of
> what
> > constitutes a living system to the Alife community has pushed out from a
> > naive application of neo-darwinist mechanism. Some would argue for the
> > necessary presence of generalized thermodynamic work-cycles for an Alife
> > system to be considered "alive". "Some" being me with a mouse in my pocket
> > ;-)
> >
> > -S
> > ________________________________________________________
> > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:25 AM
> > > To: [hidden email]
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] RE: Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Just being annoying,
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > > Clark University
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> > >  [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Today's Topics:
> > > >
> > > >    1. Darwin@Home (Stephen Guerin)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Message: 1
> > > > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:27:13 -0700
> > > > From: "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]>
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> > > > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]>
> > > > Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > >
> > > > Biota.org is back up and promoting Darwin@Home.
> > > > http://www.darwinathome.org/mission/index.html
> > > >
> > > > Some familiar Alife applications are adapting to it:
> > > >
> > > >   - Fluidium: Gerald De Jong's "tensegrity" structures. Nice example
> of
> > > JOGL
> > > > and webstart
> > > > I believe Owen passed around a link 6 months ago:
> > > > http://fluidiom.sourceforge.net/
> > > >
> > > >   - SodaBot -> SodaRace
> > > >
> > > >   - Larry Yaeger's PolyWorld
> > > >
> > > >   - More at: http://www.darwinathome.org/teams/index.html
> > > >
> > > > -Steve
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________________________
> > > > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > > > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > > > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Friam mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > > > *************************************
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > > http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org

--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish             Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone [phone] (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                     Fax   [phone] (")
Australia             [hidden email]            
Room 2075, Red Centre                    http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20050111/30305e6c/attachment-0001.bin

[Stephen Guerin]

Thanks Nick and Russell for clarifying my first point where I sloppily
wrote:
> I consider natural selection to be a form of adaptation.

I should have written "I consider natural selection to be a mechanism for
adaptation." A lot of us here consider natural selection to a mechanism of
search that isn't *necessarily* privileged over other search techniques like
simulated annealing, greedy hill climbers or even random search. Perhaps its
particularly suited for co-evolutionary fitness landscapes, but it
ultimately is just another mechanism of search. Adaptation is not a
mechanism - it is a measure of quality perhaps analagous to a q-factor in
the measurement of quality of thermodynamic engines.

To further clarify, natural selection certainly is not the only mechanism,
nor is it the case that the use of natural selection guarantees adaptation
in natural or digital systems.

Interestingly, natural selection has little to say how biological
organization arises in the first place. Here, I like Fontana and Buss's term
"arrival of the fittest" from DeVries to make the distinction from "survival
of the fittest".
http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/wpabstract/199309055

Nick writes:
> How can we define adaptation and how can we recognize the adapted organism
without counting the number of
> its offspring

If you agree that all organisms capture useable energy (free energy) from
their environments, might we recognize an adapted organism as an organizing
system that does work, ie an engine?

-S

________________________________________________________
[hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 5:01 PM
> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
> Cc: Stephen Guerin
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
>
>
> I'm not entirely sure I could give a precise definition of adaption
> either, but it is clear that it differs from natural/artificial
> selection. The Bedau-Packard activity stats (see the numerous papers
> by Mark Bedau et al. on the subject) provides a measure of adaption,
> and it is possible for evolutionary systems (systems with variation
> and selection) to not experience adaption at all. The classic example
> is an evolutionary system operating above the error threshold (aka
> mutational meltdown).
>
> Note that when the concept of fitness is present, adaption is rather
> easy to define. However, not all evolutionary systems have a notion of
> fitness - in particular most of the interesting ones don't.
>
>    Cheers
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 02:19:54PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > Steve,
> >
> > We must consider if we want the statements
> >
> > "natural selection begets adaptation"
> >
> > or
> >
> > "the adapted organism is favorably selected"
> >
> > to be analytical or contingent.   I.e., do we want them to be
> like 2 + 2 =
> > 4, or do we want them to be like "steve Guerin has a red tie on today."
> >
> > I prefer them to be contingent, which means of course that is
> possible to
> > imagine worlds in which natural selection does NOT produce
> adaptation and
> > worlds in which the adapted organism is NOT favorably.
> >
> > To make the truth of these statements contingent, adaptation has to be
> > defined in a way that is unconnected with the definition of natural
> > selection.  Adaptation cannot be defined as, "Whatever natural selection
> > produces."  nor can the adapted organism be defined as that
> organism that
> > has the most offspring.  How can we define adaptation and how can we
> > recognize the adapted organism without counting the number of
> its offspring
> >
> > To answer this question I think we need to turn to the thinking
> of a much
> > abused and little known author who has defined adaptation as "natural
> > design".  Natural design is, roughly, "whatever properties of
> nature that
> > WOULD lead us to make attributions of intentional design except that we
> > know they arent."   What ARE those properties.    A sahib, that is the
> > problem.
> > Unfortuately, nobody (except the aforementioned lonely thinker)
> has given
> > this problem any damn thought at all and the lonely thinking
> has been too
> > stupid to make much progress on it on his own.
> >
> > I do know, though that a natural selection program that does
> not adapt in
> > some [other] sense is not doing evolution.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > Clark University
> > [hidden email]
> > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> >  [hidden email]
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]>
> > > To: <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity
> > Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> > > Date: 1/10/2005 1:01:54 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> > >
> > > Nick writes:
> > > > Do these models have adaptation?   Most models of this type
> that I have
> > > > been exposed to  have evolution and natural selection but not
> > > > ADAPTATION.
> > >
> > > Hmm, you may define "adaptation" in a more rigorous way than I.
> > >
> > > I consider natural selection to be a form of adaptation.
> Learning during
> > an
> > > agent's lifetime is another form of adaptation. And,
> manipulation of the
> > > environment, as in the indirect communication via pheromone
> fields in ant
> > > foraging, to be a third form of adaptation for an agent system.
> > >
> > > As a generality, I'd say most Alife models primary mechanism
> of adaptation
> > > is natural or artificial selection.
> > >
> > > However, Larry Yaeger's Polyworld, which is one of the models
> on the link,
> > > does include non-hereditary adaptation through Hebbian
> learning. From his
> > > paper (http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/Yaeger.ALife3.pdf):
> > >
> > > "PolyWorld brings together biologically motivated
> > > genetics, simple simulated physiologies and metabolisms,
> Hebbian learning
> > in
> > > arbitrary neural network
> > > architectures, a visual perceptive mechanism, and a suite of primitive
> > > behaviors in artificial organisms
> > > grounded in an ecology just complex enough to foster speciation and
> > > inter-species competition.
> > > Predation, mimicry, sexual reproduction, and even
> communication are all
> > > supported in a
> > > straightforward fashion. The resulting survival strategies, both
> > individual
> > > and group, are purely
> > > emergent, as are the functionalities embodied in their neural network
> > > "brains". Complex behaviors
> > > resulting from the simulated neural activity are
> unpredictable, and change
> > > as natural selection acts over
> > > multiple generations."
> > >
> > > Your point is interesting. I guess what constitutes an Alife model is
> > rather
> > > fuzzy. In the late 80s and early 90s I'd say ~70% of Alife models had
> > GA/GP
> > > mechanisms as central components. That said, tangentially
> related models
> > > like flocking, ant foraging models and machine learning
> models were also
> > > included in the conferences. Since the mid-90s, I think the meaning of
> > what
> > > constitutes a living system to the Alife community has pushed
> out from a
> > > naive application of neo-darwinist mechanism. Some would argue for the
> > > necessary presence of generalized thermodynamic work-cycles
> for an Alife
> > > system to be considered "alive". "Some" being me with a mouse
> in my pocket
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > -S
> > > ________________________________________________________
> > > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:25 AM
> > > > To: [hidden email]
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] RE: Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Steve,
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Just being annoying,
> > > >
> > > > Nick
> > > >
> > > > Nicholas S. Thompson
> > > > Professor of Psychology and Ethology
> > > > Clark University
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
> > > >  [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's Topics:
> > > > >
> > > > >    1. Darwin@Home (Stephen Guerin)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Message: 1
> > > > > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:27:13 -0700
> > > > > From: "Stephen Guerin" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > Subject: [FRIAM] Darwin@Home
> > > > > To: "Friam" <[hidden email]>
> > > > > Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> > > > >
> > > > > Biota.org is back up and promoting Darwin@Home.
> > > > > http://www.darwinathome.org/mission/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Some familiar Alife applications are adapting to it:
> > > > >
> > > > >   - Fluidium: Gerald De Jong's "tensegrity" structures.
> Nice example
> > of
> > > > JOGL
> > > > > and webstart
> > > > > I believe Owen passed around a link 6 months ago:
> > > > > http://fluidiom.sourceforge.net/
> > > > >
> > > > >   - SodaBot -> SodaRace
> > > > >
> > > > >   - Larry Yaeger's PolyWorld
> > > > >
> > > > >   - More at: http://www.darwinathome.org/teams/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > > -Steve
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________________________________
> > > > > [hidden email] http://www.redfish.com
> > > > > office: [phone] 624 Agua Fria Street
> > > > > mobile: [phone] Santa Fe, NM 87501
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Friam mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > End of Friam Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
> > > > > *************************************
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > > > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > > > http://www.friam.org
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> > Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> > http://www.friam.org
>
> --
> *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
> is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
> virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
> email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
> may safely ignore this attachment.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> A/Prof Russell Standish             Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone [phone], 8308
> 3119 (mobile)
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                     Fax   [phone] (")
> Australia             [hidden email]
> Room 2075, Red Centre

http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------