1 Nest Subsets

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-

JE:-
Evolutionary Theory was and remains an INDUCTIVE science so the internet
and Usenet groups such as sbe are IMO better placed than printed
journals to advance Evolutionary Theory. A while ago I put forward a
plan to expand sbe so that it included an electronic sbe journal type
publication which would be vetted by an elected group of sbe members. I
still support this idea as the next evolution of these groups. Also,
most public funded journals are not available online free of charge. The
public have already paid for these using taxation; why should we be
charged twice?

Then you probably want to publish your ideas using something like PLoS
http://www.plos.org/journals/journals.php

JE:-

Hi Jim,

Thanks, I will have a closer look.


In any case, you need to come up with a presentation quality-level for
your ideas - higher than you have done so far here on sbe. Maybe a
blog, with periodic postings to sbe to raise people's interest. That
would permit you to use diagrams (Venn diagrams) and the like.

JE:-
I agree that allowing diagrams within posts can make life a lot easier.
I have been hoping that sbe would change format to allow diagrams. How
about it Josh?

snip<

Back a few years ago, I went through enough of a dialog with you to
develop some appreciation of the TDF concept. But it was too much
effort for what was (I think) a fairly simple concept.

JE:-
TDF, as just a single, additive total of adults reproduced from each
adult per population is so incredibly simple that most researchers fail
to understand how crucially important TDF is to evolutionary theory. TDF
provides an empirically based single fitness constant per individual per
population which I argue, represents the only falsifiable frame of
reference that evolutionary theory has.

What I am continually arguing against here is the mathematically 100%
based multi unit of selection approach exclusively employed within Neo
Darwinism which seems to me to have been accepted as a bona fide theory
without sufficient criticism.

And I never did
understand your (less-simple) thinking regarding "nested sets".

JE:-
A single nested set is the only set type that can be validly tallied as
one TDF total. Please note: I do not claim to be the inventor of the
nested set concept. All I claim is to provide a valid application of
nested sets to evolutionary theory _necessarily contrasting nested sets
with intersecting sets_. Their key difference: nested sets cannot be
reversed and the same meaning maintained but intersecting sets can be.

why don't you produce a tutorial series of postings here - focusing
more on the 'what' of your ideas than on the 'why'. Show us how to
make TDF-based computations and explain what these computations tell
us about the world. And then, once we understand how to do it
your way, you can point out how your way is better than the
neo-Darwinian way.


JE:-
AS you know TDF only represents a simple, additive, reproductive total
per parent per population. Adults have to reproduce themselves. IOW,
each parent has to minimally reproduce another adult and not just an
infertile immature in order to validly provide just a single reproduction.

I will begin with a description of nested subsets. Proper subsets are
exactly the same concept as nested subsets which remain the same as Sets
of Russian Dolls as they are traditionally manufactured.

http://www.russiantreasures.com.au/

Proper (nested) subsets:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

Note the Euler diagram demonstrating that A is only a _subset_ of B
while conversely, B represents a _superset_ of A. The simple diagram
required to demonstrate this strictly one way relationship is two
concentric circles.

The most basic thing to notice is that if all of the smaller is in the
larger then all of the larger cannot be in the smaller, i.e. this proper
set configuration cannot be reversed and the same meaning maintained. A
nested subset configuration cannot be validly reversed and be elevated
into a superset and maintain the same meaning. It cannot even be made
equivalent to a superset and maintain the same meaning. Nested sub sets
of fitness provide this critical, one way configuration.

Nested sub sets are commonly employed within the biological sciences,
e.g. to provide trees of sub species and species:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/tj181511k6583472/


Computer programmers routinely employ nested sets as nested loops:

Simple Basic counting loops can be written as one nested within the other.

For x = 1 to 2
For y = 1 to 3
next y
next x

The x loop only counts twice and then stops. Note that at each "next x",
3 counts of y are completed. Thus y completes 3 counts nested within 2
counts of x providing a total of 2*3=6 counts. Nested loops demonstrate
multiplication.


Non nested loops:

For x = 1 to 2
next x

For y = 1 to 3
next y

Since the same loops in just a list are not nested in this way, only 2+3
= 5 outcomes are evident demonstrating addition.

Computer programming clearly demonstrates a critical difference exists
between nested loops which _remain dependently linked as a single chain
of programmed events_ and non nested loops which represent _non linked
(separate) programmed events_.

I will demonstrate how this critical difference is applied to
evolutionary theory in the next post.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx















.