Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror
ekurtz99_at_WhoKnowsWhere.com
Date: 03/08/05
- Next message: Binesh Bannerjee: "Re: Central Dogma HELP"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Central Dogma HELP"
- In reply to: name_and_address_supplied_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 00:41:41 -0500 (EST)
> John Edser wrote:
>
>>The relative opposite of an idea is just
>>a mirror image of it. In mathematics, the
>>mirror represents zero. Note that mathematics
>>cannot tell you where to place the mirror for
>>any idea. The abolute opposite of an idea is
>>the devils image in the mirror, i.e. no reflection.
>>So what do we see when we look at the reflection of
>>Hamilton's Rule rb>c in the mirror:
>>
>> -c > -rb
>>
>>In this situation roles become reversed.
>>Hamilton's single donor now becomes a
>>single recipient accepting largess from many
>>donors related r who were originally many recipients.
>>The act remains "altruistic" as defined by
>>Hamilton but the recipients are now the
>>altruists and not the single actor. Note that
>>the sign of c has changed from positive to negative
>>for this role reversal which remains an altruistic act.
name_and_address_supplied@hotmail.com wrote:
> This is just plain wrong. As we have explained to you in the past, -c
> is not the same as "negative c".
The distinction here is between 1) the sign of the variable c 2) the
sign of the value that the variable c represents 3) the value that
results when the one is applied to the other. If Edser has not figured
this out by now, there is probably no hope. Most of us get these
distinctions straightened out by the time we are 12 or 13.
For instance, let me make a
> mathematically true statement:
>
> 4 < 5
>
> reflecting this in your mirror we have
>
> -4 > -5
>
> note that the sign of "5" stays the same throughout. "5" is always
> positive.
The point is that rb > c and -c > -rb are the same assertion. As usual
with Edser, we can expect that your attempt at clarification will lead
to further confusion.
I have finally figured out an earlier piece of Edserian confusion that
is relevant in the present case. In the Theories, models, and
simplifications thread, Edser wrote about the Newtonian model:
"EITHER mass is only composed of mass or it is assumed to be composed of
variable amounts of other things. It cannot be both. Answer: It is only
composed of mass. Only mass can increase or decrease any sub total
amount of mass that exists in just one part of the universe. "
What does he mean by talking about mass being "...composed of variable
amounts of other things"? It means mass expressed as a function of other
variables such as time and velociy. This is his way of saying that in
the Newtonian scheme, mass cannot be a dependent variable, as it can in
Relativity, where it is a function of velocity. So why doesn't he say
"mass cannot be a function of velocity...etc"? Clearly because he does
not know what a function is. This would indicate a mathematical level
below that of a 14 year old, consistent with the above. It inevitably
means that he is also ignorant of coordinate geometry and, of course,
calculus, and everything beyond.
Of course, though *matter* is conserved in Classical physics, it is
still possible for the *mass* of an object to be a function of time - eg
a bucket of water will have a mass that decreases with time as the water
evaporates. Most of us see no contradiction since we know what happens
to the water given off. But this is because we have had the conservation
of matter dinned into us at an early age, another lesson Edser
apparently missed.
- Next message: Binesh Bannerjee: "Re: Central Dogma HELP"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Central Dogma HELP"
- In reply to: name_and_address_supplied_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror"
- Next in thread: John Edser: "Re: Hamilton's Rule In The Mirror"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
