John Edser wrote:
>>snip<
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>It is true that: "If each element only has one parent, 
>>it can only be a member of one set" where that set
>>represents the absolute fitness set of that parent
>>AND no sets are intersected.
> 
> 
> BOH: 
> So, if no sets are intersected, then there are no intersections.
> 
> JE:-
> Yes.
> 
So, if there are no intersections, where does this leave your claim that 
intersecting sets are fundamental to understanding selection?

> 
>>JE:-
>>If and only if, each set element within every
>>absolute fitness set, i.e. each fitness element, 
>>is _eqivalent_within one population THEN
>>each absolute fitness set CAN be intersected. 
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Right, they can be intersected, but they only will be intersected if 
> there is an element that is a member of both sets.  i.e. if it has two 
> parents.
> 
> JE:-
> Ridiculous. Nothing in mathematics 
> restricts set intersection to sexual
> products.
> 
Huh?  No mention of "sexual products" was made or implied.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
---
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 12/22/03 3:23:26 PM