Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:40:16 -0500 (EST)
"Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dlvnf1$mdi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> in article dlotn0$gsg$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Perplexed in Peoria at
> jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 11/19/05 8:22 PM:
>
> > "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:dll6au$1qor$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >> OK. I think I see your logic on this point now. Let me try another taste
> >> test, assuming that you agreed with my claim that the position of the R line
> >> can vary and its mean position is a function of the distribution of 'r'
> >> values from realized altruistic interactions in the population.
> >
> > The R line IS a mean. If you wish to call a simple mean 'a function of the
> > distribution', I guess that is true.
>
> OK. What would a mean be if not a function of a distribution? I was trying
> to emphasize the idea that your R line can actually exist in any location in
> your graphical space depending on who interacts with whom.
Yes, but if you narrow your focus down to a single actual donor-recipient
pair, you don't even have lines. You have a pair of points. You can't vary
the population allele frequencies given a specific donor and recipient.
[snip remainder - no points of disagreement or confusion]
.
- References:
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Catherine Woodgold
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Guy Hoelzer
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Guy Hoelzer
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Guy Hoelzer
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- From: Guy Hoelzer
- Re: Hamilton's rule
- Prev by Date: Call for paper in Nanotechnology journal
- Next by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Previous by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by thread: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|