"For a Breath I Tarry" is a 1966 post-apocalyptic novelette by American writer Roger Zelazny, which was nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Novelette in 1967. Set in a future long after the self-extinction of humanity, the novelette recounts the tale of Frost, a sentient machine. Although humans have caused their own extinction, the sentient machines that they created continue the work of rebuilding a shattered Earth. Along the way, the story explores the differences between humanity and machines, the former experiencing the world qualitatively, while the latter doing so quantitatively. This difference is illustrated through philosophical conversations between Frost and another machine named Mordel. Frost's goal of becoming human, along with literary allusions, drives the plot and sets the tone of the novelette. These allusions include the first chapter of the Book of Job, in both situation and language, since verses are both quoted directly and paraphrased. In addition, the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis are echoed. Finally, Frost and Mordel enter into a Faustian bargain, though with better results than in the original story. The other major character is the Beta Machine, Frost's peer in the Southern Hemisphere. (Frost controls the Northern Hemisphere.) The novelette hints that though being a machine, Beta has a feminine personality. After Frost has succeeded in his millennium-long quest to become human (via recovered DNA), Beta agrees to join him in becoming human—suggesting the possibility of rebirth for the human race. The novelette has appeared in collections of Zelazny's works and in anthologies. The title is from a phrase in the poet A. E. Housman's collection A Shropshire Lad.
FedRAMP
The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) is a United States federal government-wide compliance program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous monitoring for cloud products and services. The US government describes FedRAMP as FISMA for the cloud. == Overview == The FedRAMP PMO mission is to promote the adoption of secure cloud services across the federal government by providing a standardized approach to security and risk assessment. Per the OMB memorandum, any cloud services that hold federal data must be FedRAMP authorized. FedRAMP prescribes the security requirements and processes that cloud service providers must follow in order for the government to use their service. There are two ways to authorize a cloud service through FedRAMP: a Joint Authorization Board (JAB) provisional authorization (P-ATO), and through individual agencies. FedRAMP provides accreditation for cloud services for the various cloud offering models which are Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service, (SaaS). == History == In 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a memorandum establishing FedRAMP "to provide a cost-effective, risk-based approach for the adoption and use of cloud services to Executive departments and agencies." The General Services Administration (GSA) established the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO) in June 2012. Before the introduction of FedRAMP, individual federal agencies managed their own assessment methodologies following guidance set by the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. == Governance and applicable laws == FedRAMP is governed by different Executive Branch entities that collaborate to develop, manage, and operate the program. These entities include: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The governing body that issued the FedRAMP policy memo, which defines the key requirements and capabilities of the program The Joint Authorization Board (JAB): The primary governance and decision-making body for FedRAMP comprises the chief information officers (CIOs) from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), General Services Administration (GSA), and Department of Defense (DOD) The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Advises FedRAMP on FISMA compliance requirements and assists in developing the standards for the accreditation of independent 3PAOs The Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Manages the FedRAMP continuous monitoring strategy including data feed criteria, reporting structure, threat notification coordination, and incident response The Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council: Disseminates FedRAMP information to Federal CIOs and other representatives through cross-agency communications and events The FedRAMP PMO: Established within GSA and responsible for the development of the FedRAMP program, including the management of day-to-day operations There are several laws, mandates, and policies that are foundational to FedRAMP. FISMA–the Federal Information Security Modernization Act–requires that agencies authorize the information systems that they use. The US government describes FedRAMP as FISMA for the cloud. The FedRAMP Policy Memo requires federal agencies to use FedRAMP when assessing, authorizing, and continuously monitoring cloud services in order to aid agencies in the authorization process as well as save government resources and eliminate duplicative efforts. FedRAMP's security baselines are derived from NIST SP 800-53 (as revised) with a set of control enhancements that pertain to the unique security requirements of cloud computing. == Third-party assessment organizations == Third-party assessment organizations (3PAOs) play a critical role in the FedRAMP security assessment process, as they are the independent assessment organizations that verify cloud providers' security implementations and provide the overall risk posture of a cloud environment for a security authorization decision. Accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), these assessment organizations must demonstrate independence and the technical competence required to test security implementations and collect representative evidence. == FedRAMP Marketplace == The FedRAMP Marketplace provides a searchable, sortable database of Cloud Service Offerings (CSOs) that have achieved a FedRAMP designation. 3PAOs, accredited auditors that can perform the FedRAMP assessment, are listed within the Marketplace. The FedRAMP Marketplace is maintained by the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO). == Security and authorization concerns == A 2026 ProPublica investigation found that FedRAMP entered into a partnership with Microsoft despite considerable concerns about the security of its cloud technology.
The Eye of Mexico
The Eye of Mexico (Spanish: El Ojo de México) is an outdoor sculpture in Mexico City. It is located in Ampliación Granada, Miguel Hidalgo, at the mixed-use development Neuchâtel Polanco, developed by the Canadian real estate company Ivanhoé Cambridge. The artwork was created by the Turkish artist Ferdi Alıcı and it was selected from among 350 proposals from artists from 35 countries. The project for The Eye of Mexico was developed by MIRA, a real estate investment and development company, and MASSIVart, a creative consulting agency. According to MIRA, upon its inauguration it became the first artwork in Latin America to use artificial intelligence (AI). The sculpture can read environmental and urban data using AI algorithms and transform the results into videos related to arts, science and technology. The ring was inaugurated on 20 May 2022 and it is 10 meters (33 ft) high and 3 meters (9.8 ft) wide.
Dartmouth workshop
The Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence was a 1956 summer workshop widely considered to be the founding event of artificial intelligence as a field. The workshop has been referred to as "the Constitutional Convention of AI". The project's four organizers, Claude Shannon, John McCarthy, Nathaniel Rochester and Marvin Minsky, are considered some of the "founding fathers" of AI. However it was not the first conference devoted to what would now be described as the question of artificial intelligence: it postdated meetings such as the 1951 Paris cybernetics conference and the Macy meetings. The project lasted approximately six to eight weeks and consisted largely of brainstorming sessions. Eleven mathematicians and scientists originally planned to attend; not all of them attended, but more than ten others came for short times. == Background == In the early 1950s, there were various names for the field of "thinking machines": cybernetics, automata theory, and complex information processing. The variety of names suggests the variety of conceptual orientations. In 1955, John McCarthy, then a young Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Dartmouth College, decided to organize a group to clarify and develop ideas about thinking machines. He picked the name 'Artificial Intelligence' for the new field. He chose the name partly for its neutrality; avoiding a focus on narrow automata theory, and avoiding cybernetics which was heavily focused on analog feedback, as well as him potentially having to accept the assertive Norbert Wiener as guru or having to argue with him. In early 1955, McCarthy approached the Rockefeller Foundation to request funding for a summer seminar at Dartmouth for about 10 participants. In June, he and Claude Shannon, a founder of information theory then at Bell Labs, met with Robert Morison, Director of Biological and Medical Research to discuss the idea and possible funding, though Morison was unsure whether money would be made available for such a visionary project. On September 2, 1955, the project was formally proposed by McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester and Claude Shannon. The proposal is credited with introducing the term 'artificial intelligence'. The Proposal states: We propose that a 2-month, 10-man study of artificial intelligence be carried out during the summer of 1956 at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. The study is to proceed on the basis of the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it. An attempt will be made to find how to make machines use language, form abstractions and concepts, solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves. We think that a significant advance can be made in one or more of these problems if a carefully selected group of scientists work on it together for a summer. The proposal goes on to discuss computers, natural language processing, neural networks, theory of computation, abstraction and creativity (these areas within the field of artificial intelligence are considered still relevant to the work of the field). On May 26, 1956, McCarthy notified Robert Morison of the planned 11 attendees: For the full period: 1) Dr. Marvin Minsky 2) Dr. Julian Bigelow 3) Professor D.M. Mackay 4) Mr. Ray Solomonoff 5) Mr. John Holland 6) Dr. John McCarthy For four weeks: 7) Dr. Claude Shannon 8) Mr. Nathaniel Rochester 9) Mr. Oliver Selfridge For the first two weeks: 10) Dr. Allen Newell 11) Professor Herbert Simon He noted, "we will concentrate on a problem of devising a way of programming a calculator to form concepts and to form generalizations. This of course is subject to change when the group gets together." The actual participants came at different times, mostly for much shorter times. Trenchard More replaced Rochester for three weeks and MacKay and Holland did not attend—but the project was set to begin. Around June 18, 1956, the earliest participants (perhaps only Ray Solomonoff, maybe with Tom Etter) arrived at the Dartmouth campus in Hanover, N.H., to join John McCarthy who already had an apartment there. Solomonoff and Minsky stayed at Professors' apartments, but most would stay at the Hanover Inn. == Dates == The Dartmouth Workshop is usually said to have run for six weeks. Ray Solomonoff's notes taken during the workshop, however, indicate that it ran for roughly eight weeks, from about June 18 to August 17. Solomonoff's notes start on June 22; June 28 mentions Minsky, June 30 mentions Hanover, N.H., July 1 mentions Tom Etter. On August 17, Solomonoff gave a final talk. == Participants == Initially, McCarthy lost his list of attendees. Instead, after the workshop, McCarthy sent Solomonoff a preliminary list of participants and visitors plus those interested in the subject. 47 people were listed. Solomonoff, however, made a list of participants in his notes of the summer project: Ray Solomonoff Marvin Minsky John McCarthy Claude Shannon Trenchard More Nat Rochester Oliver Selfridge Julian Bigelow W. Ross Ashby W.S. McCulloch Abraham Robinson Tom Etter John Nash David Sayre Arthur Samuel Kenneth R. Shoulders Shoulders' friend Alex Bernstein Herbert Simon Allen Newell Shannon attended Solomonoff's talk on July 10 and Bigelow gave a talk on August 15. Solomonoff doesn't mention Bernard Widrow, but in 1994 Widrow said that he and an unidentified colleague from the same lab in MIT had attended for one week. In the same interview Widrow recalled that "I think [Wesley] Clark and [Belmont] Farley were there from Lincoln Lab." Trenchard mentions R. Culver and Solomonoff mentions Bill Shutz. Herb Gelernter didn't attend, but was influenced later by what Rochester learned. In an article in IEEE Spectrum, Grace Solomonoff additionally identifies Peter Milner in a photo taken by Nathaniel Rochester in front of Dartmouth Hall. Ray Solomonoff, Marvin Minsky, and John McCarthy were the only three who stayed for the full time. Trenchard took attendance during two weeks of his three-week visit. From three to about eight people would attend the daily sessions. == Event and aftermath == They had the entire top floor of the Dartmouth Math Department to themselves, and most weekdays they would meet at the main math classroom where someone might lead a discussion focusing on his ideas, or more frequently, a general discussion would be held. It was not a directed group research project; discussions covered many topics, but several directions are considered to have been initiated or encouraged by the Workshop: the rise of symbolic methods, systems focused on limited domains (early expert systems), and deductive systems versus inductive systems. One participant, Arthur Samuel, said, "It was very interesting, very stimulating, very exciting". Ray Solomonoff kept notes giving his impression of the talks and the ideas from various discussions. === McCarthy's 1956 AI distribution list === This is the list in the "People Interested in the Artificial Intelligence Problem" document which McCarthy produced in 1956, partly in lieu of a list of attendees at the Dartmouth workshop. According to McCarthy the list was "being sent to the people on the list and a few others", and its purpose was "to let those on it know who is interested in receiving documents on the problem" of artificial intelligence. McCarthy also promised to deliver them a report on the Dartmouth conference, and to send an updated list soon afterwards. It includes people who did not attend the conference and does not include everyone who did attend it.
T-norm fuzzy logics
T-norm fuzzy logics are a family of non-classical logics, informally delimited by having a semantics that takes the real unit interval [0, 1] for the system of truth values and functions called t-norms for permissible interpretations of conjunction. They are mainly used in applied fuzzy logic and fuzzy set theory as a theoretical basis for approximate reasoning. T-norm fuzzy logics belong in broader classes of fuzzy logics and many-valued logics. In order to generate a well-behaved implication, the t-norms are usually required to be left-continuous; logics of left-continuous t-norms further belong in the class of substructural logics, among which they are marked with the validity of the law of prelinearity, (A → B) ∨ (B → A). Both propositional and first-order (or higher-order) t-norm fuzzy logics, as well as their expansions by modal and other operators, are studied. Logics that restrict the t-norm semantics to a subset of the real unit interval (for example, finitely valued Łukasiewicz logics) are usually included in the class as well. Important examples of t-norm fuzzy logics are monoidal t-norm logic (MTL) of all left-continuous t-norms, basic logic (BL) of all continuous t-norms, product fuzzy logic of the product t-norm, or the nilpotent minimum logic of the nilpotent minimum t-norm. Some independently motivated logics belong among t-norm fuzzy logics, too, for example Łukasiewicz logic (which is the logic of the Łukasiewicz t-norm) or Gödel–Dummett logic (which is the logic of the minimum t-norm). == Motivation == As members of the family of fuzzy logics, t-norm fuzzy logics primarily aim at generalizing classical two-valued logic by admitting intermediary truth values between 1 (truth) and 0 (falsity) representing degrees of truth of propositions. The degrees are assumed to be real numbers from the unit interval [0, 1]. In propositional t-norm fuzzy logics, propositional connectives are stipulated to be truth-functional, that is, the truth value of a complex proposition formed by a propositional connective from some constituent propositions is a function (called the truth function of the connective) of the truth values of the constituent propositions. The truth functions operate on the set of truth degrees (in the standard semantics, on the [0, 1] interval); thus the truth function of an n-ary propositional connective c is a function Fc: [0, 1]n → [0, 1]. Truth functions generalize truth tables of propositional connectives known from classical logic to operate on the larger system of truth values. T-norm fuzzy logics impose certain natural constraints on the truth function of conjunction. The truth function ∗ : [ 0 , 1 ] 2 → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \colon [0,1]^{2}\to [0,1]} of conjunction is assumed to satisfy the following conditions: Commutativity, that is, x ∗ y = y ∗ x {\displaystyle xy=yx} for all x and y in [0, 1]. This expresses the assumption that the order of fuzzy propositions is immaterial in conjunction, even if intermediary truth degrees are admitted. Associativity, that is, ( x ∗ y ) ∗ z = x ∗ ( y ∗ z ) {\displaystyle (xy)z=x(yz)} for all x, y, and z in [0, 1]. This expresses the assumption that the order of performing conjunction is immaterial, even if intermediary truth degrees are admitted. Monotony, that is, if x ≤ y {\displaystyle x\leq y} then x ∗ z ≤ y ∗ z {\displaystyle xz\leq yz} for all x, y, and z in [0, 1]. This expresses the assumption that increasing the truth degree of a conjunct should not decrease the truth degree of the conjunction. Neutrality of 1, that is, 1 ∗ x = x {\displaystyle 1x=x} for all x in [0, 1]. This assumption corresponds to regarding the truth degree 1 as full truth, conjunction with which does not decrease the truth value of the other conjunct. Together with the previous conditions this condition ensures that also 0 ∗ x = 0 {\displaystyle 0x=0} for all x in [0, 1], which corresponds to regarding the truth degree 0 as full falsity, conjunction with which is always fully false. Continuity of the function ∗ {\displaystyle } (the previous conditions reduce this requirement to the continuity in either argument). Informally this expresses the assumption that microscopic changes of the truth degrees of conjuncts should not result in a macroscopic change of the truth degree of their conjunction. This condition, among other things, ensures a good behavior of (residual) implication derived from conjunction; to ensure the good behavior, however, left-continuity (in either argument) of the function ∗ {\displaystyle } is sufficient. In general t-norm fuzzy logics, therefore, only left-continuity of ∗ {\displaystyle } is required, which expresses the assumption that a microscopic decrease of the truth degree of a conjunct should not macroscopically decrease the truth degree of conjunction. These assumptions make the truth function of conjunction a left-continuous t-norm, which explains the name of the family of fuzzy logics (t-norm based). Particular logics of the family can make further assumptions about the behavior of conjunction (for example, Gödel–Dummett logic requires its idempotence) or other connectives (for example, the logic IMTL (involutive monoidal t-norm logic) requires the involutiveness of negation). All left-continuous t-norms ∗ {\displaystyle } have a unique residuum, that is, a binary function ⇒ {\displaystyle \Rightarrow } such that for all x, y, and z in [0, 1], x ∗ y ≤ z {\displaystyle xy\leq z} if and only if x ≤ y ⇒ z . {\displaystyle x\leq y\Rightarrow z.} The residuum of a left-continuous t-norm can explicitly be defined as ( x ⇒ y ) = sup { z ∣ z ∗ x ≤ y } . {\displaystyle (x\Rightarrow y)=\sup\{z\mid zx\leq y\}.} This ensures that the residuum is the pointwise largest function such that for all x and y, x ∗ ( x ⇒ y ) ≤ y . {\displaystyle x(x\Rightarrow y)\leq y.} The latter can be interpreted as a fuzzy version of the modus ponens rule of inference. The residuum of a left-continuous t-norm thus can be characterized as the weakest function that makes the fuzzy modus ponens valid, which makes it a suitable truth function for implication in fuzzy logic. Left-continuity of the t-norm is the necessary and sufficient condition for this relationship between a t-norm conjunction and its residual implication to hold. Truth functions of further propositional connectives can be defined by means of the t-norm and its residuum, for instance the residual negation ¬ x = ( x ⇒ 0 ) {\displaystyle \neg x=(x\Rightarrow 0)} or bi-residual equivalence x ⇔ y = ( x ⇒ y ) ∗ ( y ⇒ x ) . {\displaystyle x\Leftrightarrow y=(x\Rightarrow y)(y\Rightarrow x).} Truth functions of propositional connectives may also be introduced by additional definitions: the most usual ones are the minimum (which plays a role of another conjunctive connective), the maximum (which plays a role of a disjunctive connective), or the Baaz Delta operator, defined in [0, 1] as Δ x = 1 {\displaystyle \Delta x=1} if x = 1 {\displaystyle x=1} and Δ x = 0 {\displaystyle \Delta x=0} otherwise. In this way, a left-continuous t-norm, its residuum, and the truth functions of additional propositional connectives determine the truth values of complex propositional formulae in [0, 1]. Formulae that always evaluate to 1 are called tautologies with respect to the given left-continuous t-norm ∗ , {\displaystyle ,} or ∗ - {\displaystyle {\mbox{-}}} tautologies. The set of all ∗ - {\displaystyle {\mbox{-}}} tautologies is called the logic of the t-norm ∗ , {\displaystyle ,} as these formulae represent the laws of fuzzy logic (determined by the t-norm) that hold (to degree 1) regardless of the truth degrees of atomic formulae. Some formulae are tautologies with respect to a larger class of left-continuous t-norms; the set of such formulae is called the logic of the class. Important t-norm logics are the logics of particular t-norms or classes of t-norms, for example: Łukasiewicz logic is the logic of the Łukasiewicz t-norm x ∗ y = max ( x + y − 1 , 0 ) {\displaystyle xy=\max(x+y-1,0)} Gödel–Dummett logic is the logic of the minimum t-norm x ∗ y = min ( x , y ) {\displaystyle xy=\min(x,y)} Product fuzzy logic is the logic of the product t-norm x ∗ y = x ⋅ y {\displaystyle xy=x\cdot y} Monoidal t-norm logic MTL is the logic of (the class of) all left-continuous t-norms Basic fuzzy logic BL is the logic of (the class of) all continuous t-norms It turns out that many logics of particular t-norms and classes of t-norms are axiomatizable. The completeness theorem of the axiomatic system with respect to the corresponding t-norm semantics on [0, 1] is then called the standard completeness of the logic. Besides the standard real-valued semantics on [0, 1], the logics are sound and complete with respect to general algebraic semantics, formed by suitable classes of prelinear commutative bounded integral residuated lattices. == History == Some particular t-norm fuzzy logics have been introduced and investigated long before the family was re
Microsoft To Do
Microsoft To Do (previously styled as Microsoft To-Do) is a cloud-based task management application. It allows users to manage their tasks from a smartphone, tablet and computer. The technology is produced by the team behind Wunderlist, which was acquired by Microsoft, and the stand-alone apps feed into the existing Tasks feature of the Outlook product range. == History == Microsoft To Do was first launched as a preview with basic features in April 2017. Later more features were added including Task list sharing in June 2018. In September 2019, a major update to the app was unveiled, adopting a new user interface with a closer resemblance to Wunderlist. The name was also slightly updated by removing the hyphen from To-Do. In May 2020, Microsoft officially closed the doors on Wunderlist, ending its active service in favor of improving and expanding Microsoft To Do.
Gene expression programming
Gene expression programming (GEP) in computer programming is an evolutionary algorithm that creates computer programs or models. These computer programs are complex tree structures that learn and adapt by changing their sizes, shapes, and composition, much like a living organism. And like living organisms, the computer programs of GEP are also encoded in simple linear chromosomes of fixed length. Thus, GEP is a genotype–phenotype system, benefiting from a simple genome to keep and transmit the genetic information and a complex phenotype to explore the environment and adapt to it. == Background == Evolutionary algorithms use populations of individuals, select individuals according to fitness, and introduce genetic variation using one or more genetic operators. Their use in artificial computational systems dates back to the 1950s where they were used to solve optimization problems (e.g. Box 1957 and Friedman 1959). But it was with the introduction of evolution strategies by Rechenberg in 1965 that evolutionary algorithms gained popularity. A good overview text on evolutionary algorithms is the book "An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms" by Mitchell (1996). Gene expression programming belongs to the family of evolutionary algorithms and is closely related to genetic algorithms and genetic programming. From genetic algorithms it inherited the linear chromosomes of fixed length; and from genetic programming it inherited the expressive parse trees of varied sizes and shapes. In gene expression programming the linear chromosomes work as the genotype and the parse trees as the phenotype, creating a genotype/phenotype system. This genotype/phenotype system is multigenic, thus encoding multiple parse trees in each chromosome. This means that the computer programs created by GEP are composed of multiple parse trees. Because these parse trees are the result of gene expression, in GEP they are called expression trees. Masood Nekoei, et al. utilized this expression programming style in ABC optimization to conduct ABCEP as a method that outperformed other evolutionary algorithms.ABCEP == Encoding: the genotype == The genome of gene expression programming consists of a linear, symbolic string or chromosome of fixed length composed of one or more genes of equal size. These genes, despite their fixed length, code for expression trees of different sizes and shapes. An example of a chromosome with two genes, each of size 9, is the string (position zero indicates the start of each gene): 012345678012345678 L+a-baccdcLabacd where “L” represents the natural logarithm function and “a”, “b”, “c”, and “d” represent the variables and constants used in a problem. == Expression trees: the phenotype == As shown above, the genes of gene expression programming have all the same size. However, these fixed length strings code for expression trees of different sizes. This means that the size of the coding regions varies from gene to gene, allowing for adaptation and evolution to occur smoothly. For example, the mathematical expression: ( a − b ) ( c + d ) {\displaystyle {\sqrt {(a-b)(c+d)}}\,} can also be represented as an expression tree: where "Q” represents the square root function. This kind of expression tree consists of the phenotypic expression of GEP genes, whereas the genes are linear strings encoding these complex structures. For this particular example, the linear string corresponds to: 01234567 Q-+abcd which is the straightforward reading of the expression tree from top to bottom and from left to right. These linear strings are called k-expressions (from Karva notation). Going from k-expressions to expression trees is also very simple. For example, the following k-expression: 01234567890 Qb+baQba is composed of two different terminals (the variables “a” and “b”), two different functions of two arguments (“” and “+”), and a function of one argument (“Q”). Its expression gives: == K-expressions and genes == The k-expressions of gene expression programming correspond to the region of genes that gets expressed. This means that there might be sequences in the genes that are not expressed, which is indeed true for most genes. The reason for these noncoding regions is to provide a buffer of terminals so that all k-expressions encoded in GEP genes correspond always to valid programs or expressions. The genes of gene expression programming are therefore composed of two different domains – a head and a tail – each with different properties and functions. The head is used mainly to encode the functions and variables chosen to solve the problem at hand, whereas the tail, while also used to encode the variables, provides essentially a reservoir of terminals to ensure that all programs are error-free. For GEP genes the length of the tail is given by the formula: t = h ( n max − 1 ) + 1 {\displaystyle t=h(n_{\max }-1)+1} where h is the head's length and nmax is maximum arity. For example, for a gene created using the set of functions F = {Q, +, −, ∗, /} and the set of terminals T = {a, b}, nmax = 2. And if we choose a head length of 15, then t = 15 (2–1) + 1 = 16, which gives a gene length g of 15 + 16 = 31. The randomly generated string below is an example of one such gene: 0123456789012345678901234567890 b+a-aQab+//+b+babbabbbababbaaa It encodes the expression tree: which, in this case, only uses 8 of the 31 elements that constitute the gene. It's not hard to see that, despite their fixed length, each gene has the potential to code for expression trees of different sizes and shapes, with the simplest composed of only one node (when the first element of a gene is a terminal) and the largest composed of as many nodes as there are elements in the gene (when all the elements in the head are functions with maximum arity). It's also not hard to see that it is trivial to implement all kinds of genetic modification (mutation, inversion, insertion, recombination, and so on) with the guarantee that all resulting offspring encode correct, error-free programs. == Multigenic chromosomes == The chromosomes of gene expression programming are usually composed of more than one gene of equal length. Each gene codes for a sub-expression tree (sub-ET) or sub-program. Then the sub-ETs can interact with one another in different ways, forming a more complex program. The figure shows an example of a program composed of three sub-ETs. In the final program the sub-ETs could be linked by addition or some other function, as there are no restrictions to the kind of linking function one might choose. Some examples of more complex linkers include taking the average, the median, the midrange, thresholding their sum to make a binomial classification, applying the sigmoid function to compute a probability, and so on. These linking functions are usually chosen a priori for each problem, but they can also be evolved elegantly and efficiently by the cellular system of gene expression programming. == Cells and code reuse == In gene expression programming, homeotic genes control the interactions of the different sub-ETs or modules of the main program. The expression of such genes results in different main programs or cells, that is, they determine which genes are expressed in each cell and how the sub-ETs of each cell interact with one another. In other words, homeotic genes determine which sub-ETs are called upon and how often in which main program or cell and what kind of connections they establish with one another. === Homeotic genes and the cellular system === Homeotic genes have exactly the same kind of structural organization as normal genes and they are built using an identical process. They also contain a head domain and a tail domain, with the difference that the heads contain now linking functions and a special kind of terminals – genic terminals – that represent the normal genes. The expression of the normal genes results as usual in different sub-ETs, which in the cellular system are called ADFs (automatically defined functions). As for the tails, they contain only genic terminals, that is, derived features generated on the fly by the algorithm. For example, the chromosome in the figure has three normal genes and one homeotic gene and encodes a main program that invokes three different functions a total of four times, linking them in a particular way. From this example it is clear that the cellular system not only allows the unconstrained evolution of linking functions but also code reuse. And it shouldn't be hard to implement recursion in this system. === Multiple main programs and multicellular systems === Multicellular systems are composed of more than one homeotic gene. Each homeotic gene in this system puts together a different combination of sub-expression trees or ADFs, creating multiple cells or main programs. For example, the program shown in the figure was created using a cellular system with two cells and three normal genes. The applications of these multicellular systems are mu