Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, March 03, 2008

Male Descendents- the Violation- again

Enough with the hints. It’s apparent I will just have to cut to it.

It was first posited that a paternal family tree, which Zachriel posted as having a father, alone at the top level as the patriarch, is a nested hierarchy.

It was then shown that a patriarch does not consist of nor contain his male descendents. That wasn’t enough.

Now that has evolved to the top level being whoever you choose, as well as all of that person’s male descendants. Each subsequent level has some male descendent(s) occupying it. D(x):x={x, all male descendents of x}.

All along I have dropping hints.

blipey spewed that I was saying “fathers have fathers” so it isn’t a nested hierarchy. So close and yet so far

I kept hinting at the female side of the equation. That has fallen of deaf ears. Not my fault.

So here it is:

If all sons have mothers, and all mothers have fathers, how many hierarchies does Sam’s son- D(sam)->D(sam’s first son)- belong to?

HINT: He is the descendent of two potentially unrelated men- his father and his mother’s father.

Maybe your tree has your father and your mother’s father as the same guy. Otherwise you have a violation as the sets are no longer contained.

Can one soldier belong to two different squads or two different divisions at the same time?

Can a human belong to two phyla?

9 Comments:

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: A nested hierarchy is nothing more than a well defined(super) set which contains and consists of other specified (sub)sets.

    We will define a paternal family tree as such. Sets composed of a male and his male descendents. This is the paternal family tree of Talal in set form.

    ------

    {Talal, Hussein I, Muhammad, Talal Ghazi, El Hassan, Rashid, King Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah, Hussein}

    {Muhammad, Talal Ghazi}
    {Talal Ghazi}

    {El Hassan, Rashid}
    {Rashid}

    {Hussein I, King Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah, Hussein}

    {Ali}
    {Faisal}
    {Hashim}
    {Hamzah}

    {King Abdullah, Hussein}

    {Hussein}

    -------

    I'm not sure how much more explicit one could be.

    Please notice that this is a nested hierarchy per your definition, and derives directly from the definition of paternity. Of course, most people readily recognize the tree structure. It's not that difficult.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    From the OP:

    It was first posited that a paternal family tree, which Zachriel posted as having a father, alone at the top level as the patriarch, is a nested hierarchy.

    And your link is STILL the same.

    It was then shown that a patriarch does not consist of nor contain his male descendents.

    That still stands.

    In a paternal family tree scheme (see Zachriel's link) does the top level, the father, consist of and contain the lower levels?

    BTW your sets do not reflect your link.

    And your moving of the goalpost is also duly noted. Hussein, using your set, is the lowest in the family.

    But thanks for demonstrating your dishonesty.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We also shouldn't forget:

    Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

    How are your levels characterized?

    Also with Kings and other rulers, the next eldest son gets the throne when the ruler dies.

    IOW there is a pecking order established by time of birth.

    Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

    Can someone make a paternal family tree look like a nested hierarchy? Sure, but unless it follows the rules, what it looks like is irrelevant.

    Just like the theory of evolution- It doesn't matter how many scientists accept it, unless they can substantiate the claims what they accept is irrelevant.

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: We will define a paternal family tree as such.

    Joe G: In a paternal family tree scheme (see Zachriel's link) does the top level, the father, consist of and contain the lower levels?

    Joe G, there is no ambiguity. I explictly defined the paternal family tree in terms of sets.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: In a paternal family tree scheme (see Zachriel's link) does the top level, the father, consist of and contain the lower levels?

    Joe G, there is no ambiguity.

    There is if you think the the person at the top of the diagram YOU linked to consists of and contains the people below him.

    I explictly defined the paternal family tree in terms of sets.

    And by doing so you have destroyed the family hierarchy. The top is now the lowest entity.

    You must also think that a Private outranks a General.

    Not only that you have failed to define your levels. Putting names in a set does NOT define the set.

    BTW Zach, the following was from a post titled Nested Hierarchy for Dummies:

    A nested hierarchy is nothing more than a well defined(super) set which contains and consists of other specified (sub)sets.

    Meaning only a dummy would use it in deference to the rules I have posted many, many times.

    You also failed to abide by the examples given.

    IOW not only are you admitting to be a dummy, you are a dishonest one at that.

     
  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: And by doing so you have destroyed the family hierarchy.

    Not at all. Each set is comprised of a male and all of his male descendents.

    Joe G: The top is now the lowest entity.

    No one can be his own male ancestor. Hussein (not Hussein I) is the son of King Abdullah.

    Joe G: A nested hierarchy is nothing more than a well defined(super) set which contains and consists of other specified (sub)sets.

    Meaning only a dummy would use it in deference to the rules I have posted many, many times.


    It's your own definition! It even states A nested hierarchy is nothing more...

     
  • At 4:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's your own definition!

    For DUMMIES!

    IOW for people, like you, who cannot understand the academic reference provided.

    And even then you would have to use it in context of the examples provided.

    IOW to just use the definition for dummies without the relevant examples, is nothing more than a quote-mine.

    But anyways it is all moot now.

     
  • At 7:12 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    It's your own definition!

    For DUMMIES!

    IOW for people, like you, who cannot understand the academic reference provided.


    So, you're saying that this "other definition" that you provided is incorrect?

    Why would posit it then?

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, you're saying that this "other definition" that you provided is incorrect?

    No, my definition is for dummies who cannot comprehend the webpage with the formal definitions- like you and Zachriel.

     

<< Home