lclough wrote:
] ] This is not to say that evolving hardware isn't interesting.
]
] ] It just seems like something isn't right with this example.
] A
] ] little math will tell me, and I'll post an update later.
]
] Appears to be derived from Garvie's undergraduate thesis of
] 2001 and ties into other ongoing research at the Centre for
] Computational Neuroscience and Robotics. Anyone have insight
] as to the academic reputation of this group?

Sounds like the kind of group that would know what they are talking about. If I'm missing something, however, I'll be suprised. I'm thinking that the explanation might be that those not xors might add up to the same transistor count as the nand gates he'd have been using in the original circuit. Unfortunately, I haven't had time to dig into this, and as I'm out of town this weekend it will probably be next week. I'm intrigued though, so I will look at it. If it turns out that he is right, that karnaugh maps don't produce optimal solutions, then this leads to the possibility that there might be a different way to do circuit optimisation. (I'm not talking about evolution, either... I mean a different procedural method...)

RE: Distributed Hardware Evolution