RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: The Joe G Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,11:06   

You have not answered any of my questions.  I will repeat some:

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

2) 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"."

3) 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?

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

5) However if we define a "below" operator: "B(x) = {s : the value of s is less than or equal to x}" then:
B(A)->B(K)->B(Q)->B(J)->...

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?

Continuing:

Quote
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.

Do you still think that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?


Yes.  Can you please answer the following question.  In the following:

D(p1) -> D(p2) -> D(p3)

Does the level D(p2) consist of and contain D(p3)?

Yes or no?  I believe that most people believe that D(p2) consists of and contains D(p3).  You appear to disagree.

Quote

You probably do, but then again you are also an evolutionist.

This is not aiding your argument.

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,11:48   

I'm not paying much attention to the nested hierarchy celebrity showdown, but it was impossible not to notice the following when glancing at Joe's site:



Maybe Joe can reconcile the statements circled in red for us.  I look forward to some vintage Joe, and I'm hoping he won't forget his patented "Reality says you're wrong."

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,12:07   

And Joe, we're hoping you'll come back to this thread at Alan's blog to answer some questions for us.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,13:49   

Quote (Rob @ July 23 2007,11:48)
I'm not paying much attention to the nested hierarchy celebrity showdown, but it was impossible not to notice the following when glancing at Joe's site:



Maybe Joe can reconcile the statements circled in red for us.  I look forward to some vintage Joe, and I'm hoping he won't forget his patented "Reality says you're wrong."

Nice Find.

Joe, are you capable of discussing matters on a unmoderated forum, or will you scuttle off back to safe ground?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4880
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,14:13   

This is a moderated forum. It's just not a crushingly moderated forum. Moderation is a good thing, really.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,14:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 23 2007,14:13)
This is a moderated forum. It's just not a crushingly moderated forum. Moderation is a good thing, really.

It's okay in moderation.  ???

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:22   

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


If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.

Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.


In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone

In your card example the first/ super set is all cards. Then you get rid of the aces and so on.

Also- do you see your definition of a nested hierarchy on the link provided?

hierarchy principles

If not I don't agree with it.


To Rob:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com

I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.

Also I can't make out what it is you want me to reconcile.

To blipey:

I made my position clear- the FATHER does not consist of nor contain his family. The FATHER sits alone on top of a PATERNAL family tree.

In Franky's scheme the top set contains all male descendants as they are born, as well as the father.

I don't know when I'll get back, but please hold your breath...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:33   

OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious. And if you think it does then there is a good reason I won't be answering any more of your questions.

Do you guys ever answer any questions pertaining to the theory of evolution or universal common descent? I mean with scientific data and such...

My point has always been if you are going to use any family tree, use the whole tree. Getting selective is deceptive.

The whole point was to show that universal common descent, which would include both parents, would predict a nested hierarchy.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,15:41   

Joe:  
Quote
OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious.

The part I don't understand is how something can be nonexistent in reality and yet not be fictitious.  But I forgot that in Joe's world, anything is possible.

Edited to add:  I realize that you're aware of the fact that hierarchical paternal relationships exist, and that when you say that paternal family trees don't exist in reality and yet they're not fictitious, you're just communicating poorly.  But it's gratifying to make fun of you because you're an arrogant jerk who would rather heap insults on his opponents than try to convey his thoughts coherently.  If you were to make that effort, you might find that some of your ideas are, au fond, incoherent.

And BTW, I understand your position as well as your opponents' on the paternal tree / nested hierarchy thing, and it seems to me that any hierarchy could be considered nested if the nodes are interpreted that way.  If we interpret a node labeled "Bob" to include Bob's posterity, as franky does, then the hierarchy is nested.  If we interpret it to not include his posterity, then the hierarchy is not nested.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:05   

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems

This quotemine's worthy of Sal, I think you'll agree.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:09   

Quote
If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.


Stop.  Do we agree that the following structure:
Code Sample

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


forms a nested hierarchy?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  (Call this structure example 1)

Quote
Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.

I do not know what you mean by "correct rendition".  

Quote
In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone

Do we agree that example 1 forms a nested hierarchy?  Yes or no.  Do we agree that example 1 describes a "paternal family tree"?  Yes or no.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:18   

Quote
Example 1:

Code Sample

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

If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.

Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.


Joe, if you have a problem with this, then why is the following not a problem?

                  D(Field Army)
                 /              \
D(Division A)                D(Division B)

An ARMY is a NH, as you have agreed, and would include all divisions A, B, C, etc.  The function D(x) here denotes all sets that include a particular level and those under it.  You have continually stated that an ARMY consists of itself and all levels under it.  How is this not represented in the above examples?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:19   

Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

Quote
the original argument of a paternal family tree


What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:21   

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.

Yes, bcoz Alan's blog's infrastructure is provided by blogger.com who are really google.com and as we all know, their internet backbone linkage is v.poor indeed.

I mean, you'd have to put a datacentre in every town to get the kind of coverage google have got. Impossible!


From where I am my ISP goes 16 hops to blogger.com, and the only intermediary network is level3.net.

Joe, if you install Tor it should allow you to proxy your traffic via other routes and make any site accessible. No excuses!

30+ hops and counting to http://www.antievolution.org.

And as to the moderation. Perhaps I should have said arbitrary censorship instead  :p

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:24   

Quote
Joe:  

OK Rob- I explained it already. What part of the following don't you understand?:

A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes a male and female to make a family. Biology 101, just as I have stated several times already.

That doesn't make it fictitious.


You see, reality demonstrates that unicorns don't exist in reality but that doesn't mean I don't have one as a pet in my room...that I feed cheesy-poofs to and buy sweaters for.

[/Joe G logic algorithm]

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:44   

Quote (franky172 @ July 23 2007,16:09)
Quote
If D(x) denotes the set {x, descendants of x} you have taken away the original argument of a paternal family tree.


Stop.  Do we agree that the following structure:
Code Sample

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


forms a nested hierarchy?  A simple yes or no will suffice.  (Call this structure example 1)

 
Quote
Ya see in your scheme the correct rendition would have D(sam, sam's first son, sam's second son), and would grow with every additional male descendant.

I do not know what you mean by "correct rendition".  

 
Quote
In a paternal family tree the father sits on top, alone

Do we agree that example 1 forms a nested hierarchy?  Yes or no.  Do we agree that example 1 describes a "paternal family tree"?  Yes or no.

You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.

What are the defintionS for each of your levels? Male descendant is one definition and it is also part of the definition of the whole.

A correct rendition of a paternal family tree has the patriach at the top- alone.

Do you understand that?

A simple yes or no. We cannot continue until we agree on that point.

By including all male decendants into the top superset D(x) you no longer have a paternal family tree.

Do you understand that?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Joe G



Posts: 2040
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,16:50   

Quote (blipey @ July 23 2007,16:19)
Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

 
Quote
the original argument of a paternal family tree


What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.

The next level would be his closest descendants.

In Frank's scheme the top level is the patriach and all male descedants.

What part about that don't you understand?

Time isn't cheap and I've wasted too much here already.

When you have something new please drop by my blog and let me know...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

Smilodon's Retreat is a place for ignorant cowards

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. (don't know why Ogre has that, but it fits IDists)

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:08   

Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,16:50)
 
Quote (blipey @ July 23 2007,16:19)
Also Joe, since this makes no sense, perhaps you can expound:

   
Quote
the original argument of a paternal family tree


What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?

And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.

The next level would be his closest descendants.

In Frank's scheme the top level is the patriach and all male descedants.

What part about that don't you understand?

Time isn't cheap and I've wasted too much here already.

When you have something new please drop by my blog and let me know...

Just "Wow". This level of obtuseness is completely unprecedented in my experience. And that is a lot of experience...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:24   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 23 2007,16:21)
   
Quote (Joe G @ July 23 2007,15:22)
I have problems getting to Alan's blog- as well as ARN.

Yes, bcoz Alan's blog's infrastructure is provided by blogger.com
who also hosts Joe's blog.

--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
stevestory



Posts: 10372
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,17:47   

I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:11   

Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:15   

I'm going to take your appearance here, Joe, as evidence that you are absolutely lost and out of your league.  What evidence do I have for this?

Well, someone who is bombastic, rude, and generally a disagreeable person (look at this distinction, Joe)--BUT WHO ALSO KNOWS WHAT THE HELL THEY"RE TALKING ABOUT--generally will answer yes/no questions.  They will follow that answer up with a scathing attack on the asker, but they will answer the question because it proves they're right.

You, on the other hand, never answer yes/no questions, just skipping right to the scathing (warning: distinction coming up)--COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED--attack.

Here's the condensed list of simple questions you need to answer.  By answering them, you will show your superior logic skills and knowledge.

1.  Precisely what part of your argument did franky172 misrepresent in my post?  Please be specific.

2.  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"."

This is tricky, Joe.  Do you or do you not agree?  You've avoided this several times.  I think it's because you don't understand the words either you or franky used.

3.  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?

Another very tricky yes/no question.  If we could just tart with this one, we'd have somewhere to go.  Either this is your position and we can start the discussion here.  Or, it isn't your position and we need to start somewhere else.

4.  In the following:

D(p1) -> D(p2) -> D(p3)

Does the level D(p2) consist of and contain D(p3)?

Yes or no?

5.  Do we agree that the following structure:

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


forms a nested hierarchy?

6.  What do you think the argument of a paternal family tree is?  And how does this differ from what the original argument of a paternal family tree was?

Your answer here seems to say that the "argument of a paternal family tree" is that the father is on top.  In other words, we construct paternal family trees in order to figure out who the father is.  Is this a correct interpretation of your statement:

Quote
Ummm a "paternal family tree" has the patriach sitting on top- alone. Then all male descendants are under him.


Thanks for avoiding these with tardarific obfuscation.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
stevestory



Posts: 10372
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:19   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,19:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

:p

   
Rob



Posts: 154
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:22   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,18:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

Plus he's a chauvinist!

I'm just kidding, but Joe is not:
Quote
What I will say about any "paternal family tree" is it demonstrates chauvinism.

By blipey's insistent use of a "paternal family tree" we could safely infer he is a chauvinist as well.


--------------
-- Rob, the fartist formerly known as 2ndclass

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:24   

That's as may be, but I like really big breasts; I get points for that, right?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,18:28   

This does bring up a question for me, Joe.  Do you believe that a maternal family tree is a nested hierarchy?

Or, perhaps we should start with an easier question?

Do you believe that a maternal family tree is a real construct?  If you do, I'll be more than happy to continue the argument using this completely and radically different structure.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
franky172



Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,19:47   

Quote
You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.


I have asked you a simple question.  Do you think this is a nested hierarchy:

Code Sample

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


This is a straightforward question.

 
Quote
What are the defintionS for each of your levels? Male descendant is one definition and it is also part of the definition of the whole.

I do not understand your statement.

 
Quote
A correct rendition of a paternal family tree has the patriach at the top- alone.

Do you understand that?

It is true that in typical renditions of "family trees" we replace the notation D(sam) with simply "Sam", but this is merely shorthand - we understand that the lines connecting different people are shorthand for "descendent of" and we can interpret the names shown on the treee as belonging to the unique individual whose position is at each node.  I.e. the shorthand:

Code Sample

      Sam
     /   \
   Bill Steve

Means that Bill and Steve are descendents of Sam, and in terms of the "descendent" relationship, this structure forms a nested hierarchy since we are using an implicit shorthand for:

Code Sample

      D(Sam)
     /   \
   D(Bill) D(Steve)


 
Quote
A simple yes or no. We cannot continue until we agree on that point.

It depends what you mean by "patriarchal family tree", typically we use shorthand to represent the nested hierarchical structure that descent from a common ancestor leads to, and we simply write "X" at each node of a tree.  This is for many reasons, one of which is simplicity of notation.  That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.  Do we agree that we can sort the descendents of a person into a nested hierarchy, and that with slight change of notation this structure is identical to the colloquial "family tree"?

 
Quote
By including all male decendants into the top superset D(x) you no longer have a paternal family tree.

I believe that the notation D(x) explicitly shows that decent-based relationships form nested hierarchies, regardless of whatever definition of "paternal family tree" you want to use.  Do we agree?

Now that I have answered your questions, there are several questions that have been posed to you that remain unanswered.  Would you do us the favor of answering them?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,20:15   

Quote (carlsonjok @ July 23 2007,18:11)
Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

It isn't that hard, Steve.  See here, a family tree must have the wimminfolk on it, otherwise it don't make no sense.   The reason you are having a hard time with it is because you are a homo and don't get the biology of reproduction.

Hang on there -- I thought that wimminfolk came from a  guy's rib, anyway.

So there'd be just one dude at the top of the family line anyway, no . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2714
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,21:49   

Quote (stevestory @ July 23 2007,17:47)
I don't know much about this 'nested hierarchy' business so I took a look at this page. It's a little complicated.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nested_Hierarchy

Just to draw a distinction; in mathematics, a nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. This definition would include leaves on an archetypal tree grouped naturally by branch and limb; an orthodox military organization; or even an arbitrary but carefully devised classification scheme. In biology, it refers specifically to the observed nested hierarchy of taxonomic traits.

Quote (franky172 @ July 23 2007,19:47)
Quote
You stop Franky. If it doesn't abide by the principles of hierarchy then it isn't a nested hierarchy.

I have asked you a simple question.  Do you think this is a nested hierarchy:

Code Sample

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

This is a straightforward question.

Joe G's problem is far more fundamental than that. Joe G doesn't have a clear understanding as to what is meant by a "set" or even if the contents of my pocket can be considered as a set. Hence, discussions of subsets, supersets, nested sets, empty sets, much less how we can recognize a taxonomy are well beyond his kin. Nor does he recognize his limitation in this regard.

(That was the thread that led to my banning by arbitrary demand.)

Quote
Joe G:  A paternal family tree doesn't exist in reality

Apparently, Joe G doesn't know who is in the set of {his males descendants} or the set of {his father's male descendants}.

--------------
Proudly banned three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2007,23:27   

Quote
That the relationship of "descended from" forms a nested hierarchical structure is not, I believe, in dispute, so what you appear to be arguing over is notation.


emphasis added to clearly denote Joe's wonder-dumbness

Actually, I believe this is exactly what Joe is disputing.  Which makes my earlier claim that he is the only person in the world who disputes this fairly plausible.

I'm still waiting for contact by all those people who agree with you, Joe.  Send them by; have them drop a comment.  It doesn't even have to be multiple people.  One person, anyone, who agrees with you will do.  Please produce this person.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

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

Pages: (14) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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