... arrays.¹

In retrospect, this was probably over-kill. It saved some space, but not much. It increased the complexity of the code & of the description of the algorithm, if only slightly. It probably would have been adequate to settle on a width of 32 bits for the increments.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... larger.²

The choice of `` $\frac{1}{100}^{th}$ the size of the population, or 10, whichever is larger'' was fairly arbitrary. In retrospect, it would have been easier & probably just as effective to use a constant, such as 10 or 17.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... child.³

Remember that the length of the bit-strings is fixed & known, to creating space for the bit-string for a new organism is simply a matter of creating a fixed-length array of bits.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... generations.⁴

Actually, the program crashed in the midst of generation 106: memory leak. Bugs happen.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

...fig-my-best.⁵

For what it's worth, run number 7 began on 6 July & ended on 6 August 2002. Run number 8 began 23 August & ended 22 September 2002.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... removed⁶

Curiously, I've never seen mention that 1 should be inserted, that the sequence should be sorted, & that duplicates should be removed. Maybe it's obvious to everyone else, but I think it's the kind of detail that's worth mentioning.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... Makefile.in.⁷

At least I can say that, as my skills have improved, my solutions & systems have become simpler.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.