01-09-2012, 07:59 AM
01-23-2012, 12:11 PM
"Saga's KittyCatS Collection" (see link in first post in this thread) is now updated with one more document: "KittyCatS Basics - for beginners".
This should hopefully be of help to new KittyCatS owners - and as always: If you got questions, corrections or ideas, feel free to IM me in SL.
Enjoy <3
Saga
This should hopefully be of help to new KittyCatS owners - and as always: If you got questions, corrections or ideas, feel free to IM me in SL.
Enjoy <3
Saga
02-09-2012, 03:43 PM
BuMp
02-09-2012, 06:46 PM
Oh!! I want to BuMp this thread too!! Hehe 
02-14-2012, 02:03 AM
*get some nails and a hammer*
BuMp
BuMp
02-23-2012, 07:51 AM
BUMB
I breed now since a few weeks with the Domination order... an i think it works really fine
if anyone interested, i set a PDF-Sheet with my actual I-plan-my-breeds-with-the-domination-order-Pedigree-Breed-Plan online
-> Glooms Breedplan
comments: Empty "boxes" = no Information about the parents or no Kittenbox "ploppet" yet...
for Printer: Its in DinA3-Format
bumb end
I breed now since a few weeks with the Domination order... an i think it works really fine
if anyone interested, i set a PDF-Sheet with my actual I-plan-my-breeds-with-the-domination-order-Pedigree-Breed-Plan online
-> Glooms Breedplan
comments: Empty "boxes" = no Information about the parents or no Kittenbox "ploppet" yet...
for Printer: Its in DinA3-Format
bumb end
02-23-2012, 08:39 AM
Liriel Garnet has now kindly offered her help to "decipher" proofs for my charts - so you can now also contact her if you have new input or proof.
Luckily, more and more people are contacting me with comments, input, new proof etc., but that also means that it gets increasingly time-consuming to keep the charts updated - so I am very happy that Liriel will now help me
Also, she regularly hosts breeding-classes, which I highly recommend attending if you need help to understand the "genetics" or the breeding-process.
Saga
P.S. Again, if a trait, an eye or a fur is NOT on the charts, it simply means that I do not have any info on it yet.
I am not keeping anything secret from anyone, it does not help to message me and ask "Do you have info about X, since I can't find it on the charts?" - if it is not there, it means I do not know. -As soon as I know, it WILL be there :-)
Luckily, more and more people are contacting me with comments, input, new proof etc., but that also means that it gets increasingly time-consuming to keep the charts updated - so I am very happy that Liriel will now help me
Also, she regularly hosts breeding-classes, which I highly recommend attending if you need help to understand the "genetics" or the breeding-process.
Saga
P.S. Again, if a trait, an eye or a fur is NOT on the charts, it simply means that I do not have any info on it yet.
I am not keeping anything secret from anyone, it does not help to message me and ask "Do you have info about X, since I can't find it on the charts?" - if it is not there, it means I do not know. -As soon as I know, it WILL be there :-)
03-05-2012, 05:30 AM
It really is SOOO usefull having the gen traits listed. This way you can tell if say a pure gen box from starters is hiding non gen traits and not trash it, and possibly something very very good as you may find out from later breedings from the parents
03-11-2012, 12:28 PM
Quite a bit of Sega's list merges information I gave her. I don't know if she ever explained my process and logic, so here it is. In the past, I've made some comments about the size of my database and the ease of gathering it. Some have voiced concern that I use information not publicly available. I don't. And I don't use robots. But it's been requested that I publicly describe my methods, so here they are:
Every so often, I run around several regions clicking (yes, BY HAND!) on cats and boxes. How often do I do this? Well, I generate my list so I can give my wife sound advice on her breeding. So, not very often .. only when I find I'm saying "dunno" too often. Where do I go and what do I look at? Only marketplace regions where KittyCatS are placed on public display. The only private stock I add to my database is my wife's. So if you've seen me standing silently, perhaps jumping from shop to shop, but not appearing to DO anything .. now you know what I'm up to!
I record my entire Local Chat for those examples. I then pass that text file through a Visual C# program which parses the text into spreadsheet/database form; which I then import into a database.
When I merge the data from the areas I've just visited with my older data, I end up with a collection of several tens of thousands of records showing the offspring's visible traits and each of the parents visible traits.
At a first pass, I reduce this data set into 'interesting combinations' .. my rule for that is that, for a given trait, the offspring must be different than either parent. I then eliminate duplicates so that each record has something interesting and is somehow different than all other records.
Now we get down to the actual logical rules. I'll do our common notation as some examples to help you see what I mean.
If both parents show the same value for a trait, and the offspring shows a different value, the trait shown by the parents is definitely dominant over that shown for the offspring. I create a new database showing just than. (Ab : Ac -> Bc) (Ab : Ab -> Bb) [A must be dominant over B]
If the parents show a different value for a trait, and the step above showed that one parent is dominant over the other, the offspring's trait MUST be recessive under the dominant parent's value. I add that pairing to my database. (Ac : Bd -> Cd) (Ad : Bc -> Cd) (Ac : Bc -> Cc) where I know A is dominant over B [A must be dominant over C]
If the offspring has a trait which has been shown to be dominant over one parent's trait, that trait must have come from the other parent and that parent's trait is also dominant over the offspring's. (Ab : Cd -> Bd) (Ab : Cc -> Bc) where I know B is dominant over C [A must be dominant over B]
If I have a rule in my database, such as "Ab" (A is dominant over b) and I have another rule, such as "Bc" (B is dominant over c), I add a rule, such as "Ac" (A is dominant over c).
I repeatedly perform the above steps until no new relationships between traits are found. At this point, I have a dominance table for a trait-class (say, Fur). It's most likely incomplete.
For each trait, I count the number of traits dominant over it. If the table is complete, I will have a clean sequence counting from 0 to N minus 1 (where N is the number of traits observed). As I said, that is unlikely. More likely is there will be several with the same number of traits dominant over them, and some skips in the counting sequence.
I order my traits starting with the one with NO (zero) traits dominant over it and place all those with the same number together on the same line, wrap it all up in a note card, and pass it to Sega. She merges my list with hers, applying information she has I don't; perhaps to separate and order some I can't tell the order of; perhaps correcting some of her orderings because I have hard data showing something she might not.
ETA: While this method works well for most breedables on Second Life, there is a class of breedables where it will fail. In the phase where I take Ab and Bc to produce Ac as a rule, Meeroos, for example (there are some others), will produce an infinite loop. The reason is that, while KittyCatS! and many other breedables use what I call "simple, linear dominance" .. a strict implementation of Mendel's Laws .. some use more advanced genetic systems. The mere fact that you find A? : A? -> B? and also B? : B? ->A?, or any sequence which leads to a similar result, is sufficient to prove that that breedable does not use the simple genetics system present in many Second Life breedables. Furthermore, while such a result proves simple linear dominance is not being used, it does not prove randomness or any other genetic system.
Every so often, I run around several regions clicking (yes, BY HAND!) on cats and boxes. How often do I do this? Well, I generate my list so I can give my wife sound advice on her breeding. So, not very often .. only when I find I'm saying "dunno" too often. Where do I go and what do I look at? Only marketplace regions where KittyCatS are placed on public display. The only private stock I add to my database is my wife's. So if you've seen me standing silently, perhaps jumping from shop to shop, but not appearing to DO anything .. now you know what I'm up to!
I record my entire Local Chat for those examples. I then pass that text file through a Visual C# program which parses the text into spreadsheet/database form; which I then import into a database.
When I merge the data from the areas I've just visited with my older data, I end up with a collection of several tens of thousands of records showing the offspring's visible traits and each of the parents visible traits.
At a first pass, I reduce this data set into 'interesting combinations' .. my rule for that is that, for a given trait, the offspring must be different than either parent. I then eliminate duplicates so that each record has something interesting and is somehow different than all other records.
Now we get down to the actual logical rules. I'll do our common notation as some examples to help you see what I mean.
If both parents show the same value for a trait, and the offspring shows a different value, the trait shown by the parents is definitely dominant over that shown for the offspring. I create a new database showing just than. (Ab : Ac -> Bc) (Ab : Ab -> Bb) [A must be dominant over B]
If the parents show a different value for a trait, and the step above showed that one parent is dominant over the other, the offspring's trait MUST be recessive under the dominant parent's value. I add that pairing to my database. (Ac : Bd -> Cd) (Ad : Bc -> Cd) (Ac : Bc -> Cc) where I know A is dominant over B [A must be dominant over C]
If the offspring has a trait which has been shown to be dominant over one parent's trait, that trait must have come from the other parent and that parent's trait is also dominant over the offspring's. (Ab : Cd -> Bd) (Ab : Cc -> Bc) where I know B is dominant over C [A must be dominant over B]
If I have a rule in my database, such as "Ab" (A is dominant over b) and I have another rule, such as "Bc" (B is dominant over c), I add a rule, such as "Ac" (A is dominant over c).
I repeatedly perform the above steps until no new relationships between traits are found. At this point, I have a dominance table for a trait-class (say, Fur). It's most likely incomplete.
For each trait, I count the number of traits dominant over it. If the table is complete, I will have a clean sequence counting from 0 to N minus 1 (where N is the number of traits observed). As I said, that is unlikely. More likely is there will be several with the same number of traits dominant over them, and some skips in the counting sequence.
I order my traits starting with the one with NO (zero) traits dominant over it and place all those with the same number together on the same line, wrap it all up in a note card, and pass it to Sega. She merges my list with hers, applying information she has I don't; perhaps to separate and order some I can't tell the order of; perhaps correcting some of her orderings because I have hard data showing something she might not.
ETA: While this method works well for most breedables on Second Life, there is a class of breedables where it will fail. In the phase where I take Ab and Bc to produce Ac as a rule, Meeroos, for example (there are some others), will produce an infinite loop. The reason is that, while KittyCatS! and many other breedables use what I call "simple, linear dominance" .. a strict implementation of Mendel's Laws .. some use more advanced genetic systems. The mere fact that you find A? : A? -> B? and also B? : B? ->A?, or any sequence which leads to a similar result, is sufficient to prove that that breedable does not use the simple genetics system present in many Second Life breedables. Furthermore, while such a result proves simple linear dominance is not being used, it does not prove randomness or any other genetic system.
03-12-2012, 06:06 AM
Hello Tad,
It's Saga - 2 a's :-)
-And thanks for the heads up, but I will hurry in and say that I did not in any way base my charts on your info when I made them. -If I had, I obviously would not have hesitated to credit you for the information.
What I did was to sit down with my own notes that I had spent many months on, and simply start stuffing it into the charts. It was very confusing at first, but slowly I started to make some sort of sense of it, and get an estimate of an actual "dominance order" that was good enough to make public - finally. LOTS of people had been asking me for that for months, since it was no secret that I was working on that.
Shortly before then, you had sent your estimate of a dominance order out, and I had also received lists from a few others who had worked on it at the same time that I did - and also, Theo & Draco Nacht had already made their lists public. So, when I was done with my own notes, I took a look at the other lists I had or had access to, online or in notecards - which all had one thing in common: I did not have access to any sort of final proof of the estimated order in those.
To my delight, it did however fit quite nicely with what I had discovered myself, confirming that maybe the order wasn't entirely off. I think I maybe swapped a pair or two of the more dominant eyes on my list due to finding two independent sources about about them, and not having enough info to prove the lists wrong myself - other than that, the initial list I made public is 100% the work of myself + the people who had willingly sent me various proofs with the purpose of making it public. While I do not remember everyone's names, I did at all times make clear that these lists are not proven by me at all - they're a community project.
Later on, I started posting "news" on the eye chart, crediting single persons for various info, which in some ways was a good idea, in other ways not so much... As it turns out, people like their names on the list and hence are more inclined to send me new proof, but it leaves all those who helped or inspired the lists BEFORE I started making the "news" in an anonymous state.
However, I never did credit you for the info you gave out, that is true - and yes, I did use your lists for cross-reference AFTER creating my own lists - but I assure you, I have not based anything on your lists and then taken the credit. Your post above does make it sound a bit like I did, and while you do not seem too upset or annoyed about it, it clashes quite a bit with my sense of honour in these things. I would never abuse anyone else's hard work and then call it my own, but I am more than willing to cooperate about the lists, and the more the better. So, if you have worked out this method and it works, I would happily cooperate with you and credit you for all your work. As far as I know, your method is rather unique and inventive, so could probably save a lot of people a lot of work. Just right now, Liriel Garnet & Synester Blackburn are doing a LOT of manual work "behind the scenes" to prove the order of the new "fruit-eyes", and we've just started to figure out the order of the new genesis furs, thanks to people who have sent me info that proves that those new genesis-furs DO indeed have a new dominance-order compared to the old.
All that could probably be done a lot easier with your methods, so I am open to cooperating - and as I said, would obviously give credit where credit is due :-)
Saga
It's Saga - 2 a's :-)
-And thanks for the heads up, but I will hurry in and say that I did not in any way base my charts on your info when I made them. -If I had, I obviously would not have hesitated to credit you for the information.
What I did was to sit down with my own notes that I had spent many months on, and simply start stuffing it into the charts. It was very confusing at first, but slowly I started to make some sort of sense of it, and get an estimate of an actual "dominance order" that was good enough to make public - finally. LOTS of people had been asking me for that for months, since it was no secret that I was working on that.
Shortly before then, you had sent your estimate of a dominance order out, and I had also received lists from a few others who had worked on it at the same time that I did - and also, Theo & Draco Nacht had already made their lists public. So, when I was done with my own notes, I took a look at the other lists I had or had access to, online or in notecards - which all had one thing in common: I did not have access to any sort of final proof of the estimated order in those.
To my delight, it did however fit quite nicely with what I had discovered myself, confirming that maybe the order wasn't entirely off. I think I maybe swapped a pair or two of the more dominant eyes on my list due to finding two independent sources about about them, and not having enough info to prove the lists wrong myself - other than that, the initial list I made public is 100% the work of myself + the people who had willingly sent me various proofs with the purpose of making it public. While I do not remember everyone's names, I did at all times make clear that these lists are not proven by me at all - they're a community project.
Later on, I started posting "news" on the eye chart, crediting single persons for various info, which in some ways was a good idea, in other ways not so much... As it turns out, people like their names on the list and hence are more inclined to send me new proof, but it leaves all those who helped or inspired the lists BEFORE I started making the "news" in an anonymous state.
However, I never did credit you for the info you gave out, that is true - and yes, I did use your lists for cross-reference AFTER creating my own lists - but I assure you, I have not based anything on your lists and then taken the credit. Your post above does make it sound a bit like I did, and while you do not seem too upset or annoyed about it, it clashes quite a bit with my sense of honour in these things. I would never abuse anyone else's hard work and then call it my own, but I am more than willing to cooperate about the lists, and the more the better. So, if you have worked out this method and it works, I would happily cooperate with you and credit you for all your work. As far as I know, your method is rather unique and inventive, so could probably save a lot of people a lot of work. Just right now, Liriel Garnet & Synester Blackburn are doing a LOT of manual work "behind the scenes" to prove the order of the new "fruit-eyes", and we've just started to figure out the order of the new genesis furs, thanks to people who have sent me info that proves that those new genesis-furs DO indeed have a new dominance-order compared to the old.
All that could probably be done a lot easier with your methods, so I am open to cooperating - and as I said, would obviously give credit where credit is due :-)
Saga