RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The Joe G Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
franky172



Posts: 158
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2007,08:16   

Quote (blipey @ July 16 2007,23:18)
 
Quote (stevestory @ July 16 2007,23:09)
yesterday and today I tried to follow this thread. It hasn't worked. I can't understand anything as dumb as Joe G denying that familial relationships work into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't make sense to me what he's saying. I just can't get it.

It doesn't make any sense to me either and I think we agree that it doesn't make sense in the "WTF kind of way" not in the "that argument is dumb ind of way".

I find it fascinating that words can be put together in such a way that they form a coherent sentence which makes no sense.  Every once in a great while he puts something down that gets ever so slightly closer to the inner core of this NH dis-belief.  I truly believe that I may live to see into that dark core of whatever-it-is.

I've now asked him if he disagrees that the Sons of Steve can be placed in all of the following categories:

1.  Family of Steve
2.  Family of Bob
3.  Family of Chris

He will, of course, avoid answering this question, but someday he may slip up and give out some info on his opinion in this matter.

If even an indirect look at what his answer to that question can be had, oh what a day...for comedy.

Hm.  Sorry if this is pedantic, but I think I see JoeG's confusion regarding a nested hierarchy.  He keeps harping on the following:

   
Quote
On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.


And I think his confusion stems from the following understanding "any element at level N of a nested hierarchy (NH) must also be a member of level N-1 of the sane NH". He interprets this to mean that the following is a NH:

Code Sample

       Bob
       /    \
    Steve     Harry
  /      \    /       \
Pete    Barry Larry   Moe


if and only if larry is a "harry".  Which is by definition "false" - calling "larry" "harry" is incorrect.  But, of course, this misses the point which is that the hierarchy isn't on particular "people"; a NH is built exclusively on relationships.  Perhaps the following explanation of the same NH would clarify for Joe, where D(x) represents descendents of (x), including "x":

Code Sample

             D(Bob)
                /    \
      D(Steve)   D(Harry)
/      \    /       \
D(Pete), D(Barry), D(Larry), D(Moe)


Where now it is true that all "descendents of Larry" are "descendents of Harry", even though "Larry" is not a "Harry".

In this way the web page he cites is properly correct:

General --> Major --> PFC

is not a nested hierarchy because "Majors" are not "Generals".  But the following is a nested hierarchy (where U(x) represents "under the command of 'x'":

Code Sample

           U(General)
           /        \
   U(Major1)     U(Major2)
  /        \       /      \
U(PFC1),U(PFC2),U(PFC3),U(PFC4).


Could that be the confusion?  Or is Joe just too far gone?

  
  409 replies since June 27 2007,11:33 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]