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 24 2007,11:29   

Quote
In Franky's scheme all male descedants of x, including x also sit at the top node/ level.


What does it mean to "sit at the top node"?  That the set D(sam) includes all of Sam's descendents?  I agree.

Quote
But is that scheme a nested hierarchy?


I have asked you on several offasions to answer whether or not you think the scheme is a nested hierarchy.  You refuse to answer.  Why is that?

Quote
With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

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

Note the word "properties".


I will ask again: your argument appears to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not plural "properties".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

Quote
Note the words "set of definitions"

I will ask again: your argument appeats to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not a plural "definitions".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

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

Note the words "several criteria".

I will ask again: your argument appeats to be that a nested hierarchy can not be formed using a single relationship, because this is not a plural "several criteria".  Is this a valid restatement of your argument?

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- ďWhoís your daddy?Ē

Quote
Now in a scheme of all male descendants of x, including x what would be the properties that characterize the level in question?

The level in question is the set of all descendents of x.

Quote
What are the set of definitions that lock a level in question to those above and below it?

Above: "direct male ancestor of"

Quote
What are the several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels?

Below: "direct male descendant of"

Quote
And for the clincher- what is done to the male descendants that are born of female descendants? How are they tied to the top level?


I don't understand your question or it's relevance.

Quote
Questions like these arise and usually go unanswered when people, who don't know what they are doing, try to establish something anyway.

This is true, but not in the way you intend.

Quote
In your scenario D(sam) would really be D(sam, samís first son, samís first grandson). So we would have D(sam, samís first son, samís first grandson)-> D(samís first son, samís first grandson)-> D(samís first grandson).


I do not understand your statement.  What does it mean for D(sam) to "really be" D(sam, sam's first son, ...)?  What does it mean for a definition of a set to "really be" something else?

Quote
Either way it demonstrates that it is a waste of time trying to discuss this with you.


I noticed that I answered all of the questions you have posed to me, and you have steadfastly refused to answer all of the questions posed to you.  Simple "yes" "no" answers will suffice, Joe.

  
  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]