Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> "John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> 

>>JE:-
>>Here we go 'round  the mulberry bush....
>>
>>--------------quote----------------------
>>
>>1) 22/01/2004:
>>
>>JE:-
>>What is the difference between
>>a reduced positive c and a negative c?
>>If c was an abolute measure of fitness
>>then yes, a real difference exists. However
>>c is only a relative fitness cost and not
>>an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
>>difference?
>>
>>BOH:-
>>
>>As far as the rule is concerned, none.
>>
>>----------- end quote --------------------
>>
>>For the 6th (?) time and counting:
>>
>>Do you agree or disagree with the
>>answer Dr O'Hara provided? A simple
>>YES or NO will suffice.
>>
> 
> 
> No, a simple yes or no will not suffice to your question as it has
> been put.
> 
> My answer is: I disagree with Dr O'Hara.
> 
Oh!  The point behind the statement I made there was that the rule still 
holds whether c is positive or negative, i.e. it can still be used to 
decide whether a behaviour will invade a population.  Obviously changing 
the value of c may change the prediction, but the rule would still be 
used.  Therfore as far as the rule is concerned, there is no difference, 
even if there would be a diffeence in a particular application of the rule.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf H„llstr”min katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland

Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 51400
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: http://www.jnr-eeb.org
---
ţ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/4/04 12:34:44 PM