Perplexed in Peoria  wrote or quoted:
> 
> "Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
> news:cbf259$3tt$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> 
> > You cannot simply talk about ratios between two infinite quantities.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > so - unqualified mention of allele frequency in an infinite population
> > makes no sense.
> 
> Your inference is valid only if you make the auxiliary assumption that
> "frequency" is defined using a ratio.  It need not be.  It can be
> defined directly as a probability.  Then ratios come in (via the
> law of large numbers) only indirectly and only for finite samples
> or populations.

If you are picking samples from a population and looking at the
limit as the sample size tends to infinity, you *still* need to
specify how you are choosing your sample.

Different approaches to taking samples are likely to lead to different 
ratios.

You can't just say something like "sample at random" - since sampling
at random from an infinite population is not normally a well-defined 
operation either.

> Returning to Hardy-Weinberg, you will notice that the derivation of
> the law uses frequencies as probabilities (i.e. random mating) -
> ratios never enter into it, since large quantities N*p never come
> into it.

While it makes sense in finite populations, "random mating" is not a 
coherent concept in an infinite population.  Nor can you sensibly
discuss the probability of organisms having a particular genome -
*unless* you specify a sampling strategy.

I have no problem with Hardy-Weinberg - provided it is expressed as
a limit as N -> oo.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/26/04 6:51:52 AM