John Edser wrote:
> 
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Without the inclusion of a constant term for
>>>at least the total resources partitioned within Hamilton's
>>>rule, then the resource costs, which absolutely limits
>>>what is finitely _possible_ in fitness increases for
>>>all recipients, then the rule permits ANY increase that may
>>>be necessary, even just an _impossible_ increase, to
>>>get the altruistic gene to spread.
>>
> 
>>NAS:-
>>From your earlier posts it seems that this talk about the need for
>>some constant stems from set theory.  I have only a modest familiarity
>>with set theory, so could you please explain exactly why the constant
>>is needed, rather than just asserting that it is.
> 
> 
>>JE:-
>>A constant/maximum is always required because 
>>it alone provides an absolute _supposition_,
>>i.e. a fixed point of logical reference.
> 
> 
> BOH:-
> Good.  Will you allow us to use zero as a constant?
> 
> JE:-
> Do you mean zero or nothing?
> These two views are _not_ the same.
> 
Zero.  That's why I wrote "zero".

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 11/6/03 3:16:23 PM