Why a paternal family tree is NOT an example of nested hierarchy
I don't know why I have to continue to beat a dead horse...
With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"
Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.
Note the word "properties".
Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.
Note the words "set of definitions"
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.
Note the words "several criteria".
With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"
Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.
Note the word "properties".
Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.
Note the words "set of definitions"
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.
Note the words "several criteria".
posted by Joe G @ 12:14 PM
3 Comments:
At 12:31 PM,
blipey said…
OMG, ROFL!
Now nested hierarchies must have a certain number of criteria to be NH???
Do you have a specific number? 5? 16?
What makes this number the magic one?
At 9:05 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Now nested hierarchies must have a certain number of criteria to be NH???
That is what the rules state.
Do you not understand the rules?
I didn't make the rules blipey.
Again from Denton:
"Biological classification is basically the identification of groups of organisms which share certain characteristics in common and its beginnings are therefore as old as man himself. It was Aristotle who first formulated the general logical principles of classification and founded the subject as science. His method employed many of the principles which are still used by biologists today. He was, for example, well aware of the importance of using more than one characteristic as a basis for identifying classes, and he was also aware of the difficult problem which has bedeviled taxonomy ever since: that of selecting the characteristics to be used and weighing their relative significance." (bold added)
At 11:57 AM,
Joe G said…
ROTFLMAO!!!!
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being made of - lower levels.
Dumba$$ Zachriel now singles out "only one or a few of them apply".
Listen up- YOUR PATERNAL FAMILY TREE ONLY HAS ONE. And the one it has applies to all levels.
If it had several and at times only one applied you may have a point.
BTW this is a perfect example of why I refuse to discuss this any further with you- that is until you ante up. Why waste my time on someone else's blog? All you are doing is puffing out your non-existant chest and pretending to be some sort of authority. You mangled the one site that defined NH into something you wanted it to say and you continue to pawn that off as fact.
I will tell you what- I will leave my blog and debate you face to face, in a public forum. I will present my case, you can present yours. I will then be given an opportunity to rebut your points and you will be given the opportunity to rebut mine.
If a Q&A is required we can have that also.
I know what I would do if I was so challenged- that is if someone said I could not post on their bandwidth until I ante'd up- I would ante up or apologize and move on.
Post a Comment
<< Home