From d11288135833692c696fe1fe2bc3ed17343c6d1e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Silver-T Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:08:39 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] Fixed some stuff --- wk10/week10.tex | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/wk10/week10.tex b/wk10/week10.tex index 449f12c..d9dc8b7 100644 --- a/wk10/week10.tex +++ b/wk10/week10.tex @@ -22,14 +22,14 @@ % \usepackage{graphicx} \begin{document} - \title{Week 8 - Quantitative data analysis} + \title{Week 10 - Quantitative Data Analysis} \author{Kelvin Davis \and Jip J. Dekker\and Tony Silvestere} \maketitle \section{Overview} - \section{Method and Results} + \section{Hill Climbing and Genetic Algorithms} % Describe methods % How did we collect data (and how we made it precise by averaging data) The experiment compared the capability of two algorithms to generate words from scratch. The first algorithm, the hill climbing approach, randomly 'guesses' each character of the required word, and fixes the ones that are correctly guessed in their respective place. The second approach however, uses a genetic algorithm to generate the words by 'breeding' the most correct words at each iteration. @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ \caption{Repeated measurements of the fitness of the genetic algorithm (as a percentage of the word) against the number of iterations taken} \label{fig:fitness2} \end{figure} - + \section{Conclusion} % Make sure Qs are answered \end{document}