[From Rick Marken (941118.1345)]
Remember that post [Rick Marken (941117.1615)] about "Stunning Artifacts".
Well, forget it! My conclusions were based on results obtained in one
special case -- where the E. coli starts at the target position. For some
reason, I ran all my tests under that condition, and the results "seemed"
right (they matched my reference for how they should look). In fact, the
approach to biasing the angle after a tumble that I used does not change the
probability of dNutA-dNutB being positive of negative after the gradient.
It looks like I'll have to go out and get Turbo Pascal (for the PC) so that I
can do my little tests using the same code as the rest of the "modellers".
So I guess I'll either have to 1) come up with a better demonstration that
Bruce's reinforcement doesn't control or 2) show that Bruce's model is really
a control model or 3) give up and admit that reinforcement and control theory
are just two alternative models of the same thing -- purposeful behavior.
Best
Rick