John Edser wrote:
>>>JE:-
>>>No sex was supposed, i.e. all reproduction
>>>was asexual. Each individual in the
>>>intersection was NOT the offspring of every
>>>parent,
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>i.e. In which case it can't be in the intersection of all of the sets.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>Yes it can because every unit of fitness is
>>_equivalent_ to every other, irrespective
>>of the parent that produced it.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> But in the absence of sex, each unit of fitness can only have one
> parent, surely?
> 
> JE:-
> Yes, here, "each unit of fitness can only have
> one  parent". You seem to be labouring under
> the misunderstanding that fitness set intersections
> are only valid when both parents contribute
> to each fitness element in the intersection.
> This is not the case. We have been
> through this a number of times. GH
> harboured the same misunderstanding. As long
> as the fitness elements are defined as equivalent
> all the sets of total parental fitness, represented
> by one Venn circle, can be validly 100% intersected
> within one population to determine the exact order
> of selection of all parents, no exceptions.
> 
> I am NOT proposing that the fitness elements
> in the intersection have been reproduced by
> both parents using sex, I am proposition that each fitness
> element was produced asexually by just one parent so
> that each Venn circle represents a _total_ fitness
> for _one_ parent. 

But then if sets A and b are your sets of fitness elements, the 
statement "All the elements in the intersection C are also in sets A and 
B" is false.



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 12/12/03 11:55:32 AM