Re: Intersecting Sets Of Fitness!Q

>>JE:-
>>Also, I have no idea what
>>"separate  sets don't" was 
>>actually referring 
>>to in your previous reply.

> BOH:-
> Try reading it as an answer to your post.  I'm saying that separate sets 
> don't intersect.

> JE:-
> Would _please_ write out (as I
> _previously_ requested) the definition 
> you said I had given, and then derive 
> from that definition "that separate sets 
> don't intersect"  so we can understand 
> what exactly you are referring to.

BOH:-
 From the 7th of November:
"Absolutely separate sets are NOT intersected with any other set."

JE:-
Note that this does not exclude
absolutely separate sets from
intersecting.

> JE:-
> I agree that absolute separate
> sets don't intersect. Do you agree
> that absolute separate sets can however,
> contain the same type of set element?

BOH:- 
I've never had any problem with that - it's your claim that they contain 
the same actual elements (i.e. that they have a non-empty intersection) 
that I have trouble with.

JE:-
Intersecting sets only contain the same
_type_ of element. I have never claimed
they contain the same actual elements.

Please confirm or deny that the logic
of natural selection can be validly
described as a 100% set intersection
of all parental fitness sets within one
population.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




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/