Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt
From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Physical fitness and evolution"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- In reply to: Anon.: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Next in thread: EKurtz: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:43 +0000 (UTC)
"Anon." <bob.ohara@SOD.OFF.Spammers.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:cbpfed$8kv$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> Too much statistics - it simply isn't a distribution in the sense I
> would use the term. The only "frequency distribution" (in the sense
> that I would use the term) would be the tri-nomial distribution with
> cell probabilities {p^2, 2p(1-p), (1-p)^2}.
Bob, you might check your texts. According to what I read, you have
just described a binomial distribution (with n=2). The corresponding
trinomial distribution would have six cells:
( p^2, q^2, r^2, 2pq, 2pr, 2qr) with the constraint that p+q+r=1.
- Next message: Guy Hoelzer: "Re: Physical fitness and evolution"
- Previous message: Tim Tyler: "Re: Absolute or just relative fitness?"
- In reply to: Anon.: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Next in thread: EKurtz: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg lawt"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|