Actually, the aim of the mutator operator, as it is used now, is to produce an individual which will compete with the "mutated" individual. There is no particular intention to have a "close" individual, thus the assumption that the mutant is at a distance of 1 mutation of the original is not justified. Moreover, because the use of the mutator operator necessarily (as it is implemented now) lead to have a competition between the original and the mutant, there is something more than the simple idea of producing an individual.
I would suggest to replace the concept of "mutator" by the concept of "stresser", or another one, which drops the intuition that the two individuals (the one selected and the one generated) are necessarily close to each other and at the same time illustrates the intention to make them compete afterward. This will also show clearly the fact that we are considering an exploratory-prone behaviour (with the explorator) and a converging-prone behaviour (with the stresser).
Actually, the aim of the mutator operator, as it is used now, is to produce an individual which will compete with the "mutated" individual. There is no particular intention to have a "close" individual, thus the assumption that the mutant is at a distance of 1 mutation of the original is not justified. Moreover, because the use of the mutator operator necessarily (as it is implemented now) lead to have a competition between the original and the mutant, there is something more than the simple idea of producing an individual.
I would suggest to replace the concept of "mutator" by the concept of "stresser", or another one, which drops the intuition that the two individuals (the one selected and the one generated) are necessarily close to each other and at the same time illustrates the intention to make them compete afterward. This will also show clearly the fact that we are considering an exploratory-prone behaviour (with the explorator) and a converging-prone behaviour (with the stresser).