Joined: June 2006
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'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:
|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