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 >  

Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2007,22:55   

Quote (blipey @ July 22 2007,16:58)
All of my pets have been way more interesting than Joe and probably smarter as well.  Let's see, Siamese Cats, Airdale Terrier, Cockatiel, a pair of Newts, Red Devil.

Yep. All more interesting.  Joe doesn't even move on to different phrasing of stupid sentences.  He says A, then A, backs it up with A, and then links to A.  Once you've looked at the 3 or so topics that Joe blathers about, it's all very boring.

I think I've actually read every sentence that Joe will ever form.  He can, at this point, add no new information to the universe.  There are other, while still stupid, more interesting tards to watch.

Oh jeez.  What have I gotten myself into.  I can't stop.....  I'm not going to post anything on Joe's blog, but I imagine he may follow this thread, and I assume he isn't banned here, so if he would like to discuss this further I might suggest he post a response here.  

But here I go:

I read frank172 and he is incorrect also. Not only that he appears to put words in my mouth.

Precisely what part of your argument did I misrepresent in my post.  Please be specific.

That seems to be common amonst evolutionitwits.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

Perhaps you guys should focus on the OP and the rules of hierarchy theory.


Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Do we agree with these rules?  Do we agree with the following definition of a nested hierarchy:

"A nested hierarchy is a structured set of sets, where all sets are potentially connected "above" to "parent" sets and "below" to "child" sets, such that all elements of a node's children are elements of the node.  The "top-most" node in such a structure, if it exists, has no parent and is called the "root node"."

Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

The argument in your original post appears to be that since a paternal family tree relies on only one "criteria" it is not a nested hierarchy.  Is this a correct statement of your argument?

With Kingdon, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, we sapiens (species) also belong to the Genus Homo, the Family Hominindae, the Order Primates, the Class Mammalia, the Phylum Chordata and the Kingdom Anamalia.

Very good.

With a paternal family tree the lower levels will never be part of the upper level. The person on the top will always be a separate entity.

I believe this is false.  Let D(x) denote the set {x,descendants of x}.  Then I argue that the following is a nested hierarchy:

Example 1:
Code Sample

               /           \
D(sam's first son) D(sam's second son)

However I do think it's funny that you think that other morons are going to be able to help you out.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

Why is it that you people still refuse to abide by the rules of hierarchy?

Which rules in particular are violated in example (1) above.  Please be specific.

And why would blipey run to some other anonymous imbeciles for support?

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

   is NOT a nested hierarchy but:
   and so on is!!!

I believe you have mis-understood the fundamentals of the argument.  Re-shaping the way we draw the structure does not alter the underlying type of structure we are dealing with.  Carefully defining the terms used to generate the sets does.  For example if we assume "A = {set of all aces}", "K = {set of all kings}" etc,


is not a nested hierarchy, because "Aces" don't consist of "Kings".  However if we define a "below" operator: "B(x) = {s : the value of s is less than or equal to x}" then:

Does form a nested hierarchy because the elements of the set "B(Q)" include the elements of "B(J)".  Do we agree that this ordering of playing cards forms a nested hierarchy?  If so, why does the following not form a nested hierarchy:

D(sam) -> D(sam's first son) -> D(sam's first grandson)?

If not, why not?

It would be best to find someone that actually knows what they are talking about.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

Better luck next time clowny. Until then I will have to go with the experts and authorities that agree with my premise that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

I have not encountered any of these people.

And that there are other imbeciles that agree with blipey sure does say quite a bit about the level of education of evolutionitwits.

Name calling does not add to the strength of your argument.

It doesn't follow the rules.

Which of the rules does the paternal family tree not follow?

LoL!!! That is why I have been asking you to draw up a paternal family tree without the names.

D(p1) -> D(p1's first son) -> D(p1's first grandson)?

In both valid schemes of a nested hierarchy that I have presented, it is clear that the lowest level belongs to ALL nodes leading to it INCLUDING the top level.

A descendant of p1's first grandson is a descendant of p1's first son is a descendant of p1.  Yes or no?

In a paternal family tree Steve is at the top node- alone. Not Steve's family. Steve does not consist of his family any more than a general consists of his troops.

But D(p1) consists of D(p1's first son).  Yes?

  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]