Who said it?
A containment hierarchy is a hierarchical collection of strictly nested sets. Each entry in the hierarchy designates a set such that the previous entry is a strict superset, and the next entry is a strict subset. For example, all rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are rectangles, and all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. A hierarchy of this kind is to be contrasted with a more general notion of a partially ordered set*.
A taxonomy is a classic example of a containment hierarchy.
*A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy.
A taxonomy is a classic example of a containment hierarchy.
*A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy.
posted by Joe G @ 1:04 PM
28 Comments:
At 4:54 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G (quoting): *A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy.
That's correct. A family tree is only partially ordered. Each marriage represents a cross between different lineages. A significant distinction from a paternal or maternal set.
At 8:22 AM,
Joe G said…
There is nothing in the quote that states it is referring to a family tree.
Are you tyrying to say that a paternal family tree is NOT a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy? Strange.
And BTW if UCD leads to a nested hierarchy then it follows that a family tree would represent a nested hierarchy. Or are you saying that a family tree is not indicative of common descent?
At 8:46 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: There is nothing in the quote that states it is referring to a family tree.
One's descendents include crosses with other families. However, there is no crossing between lineages in a paternal (or maternal) family tree. Each son has one-and-only-one father.
Joe G: Are you tyrying to say that a paternal family tree is NOT a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy?
It's a special and limited case (but important for biological, cultural and sometimes even political reasons).
As always it depends on the level of analysis. For instance, if we arrange everyone in an army into sets by chain of command, we have a nested hierarchy. If we arrange everyone in an army by pecking order, i.e. whom they salute, we do not have a nested hierarchy. Every enlised man salutes every general whether in his chain of command or not. Again, this follows from the criteria we use to create the sets, and the definition of a nested hierarchy.
Joe G: And BTW if UCD leads to a nested hierarchy then it follows that a family tree would represent a nested hierarchy.
That is incorrect. When lineages cross, we do not have a nested hierarchy. In biology, the nested hierarchy only applies to reproductively isolated lineages.
At 11:42 AM,
Joe G said…
One's descendents include crosses with other families.
Is a son a descendent or not?
However, there is no crossing between lineages in a paternal (or maternal) family tree.
You cannot have a paternal family tree without a mother. Biology 101.
Each son has one-and-only-one father.
And each son has one-and-only-one mother.
And each father and mother can have more than one son.
Are you tyrying to say that a paternal family tree is NOT a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy?
It's a special and limited case (but important for biological, cultural and sometimes even political reasons).
Either it is or it isn't. If it is than it is a partially ordered set- Period, end of story.
And BTW if UCD leads to a nested hierarchy then it follows that a family tree would represent a nested hierarchy.
That is incorrect.
That is quite correct.
When lineages cross, we do not have a nested hierarchy.
And lineages cross in common descent.
In biology, the nested hierarchy only applies to reproductively isolated lineages.
That doesn't help you. Limited common descent doesn't apply to reproductively isolated lineages. And seeing that UCD is made up of LCD, what holds for the lower level, LCD, also holds for UCD.
And in UCD, if all the transitionals were alive we would expect to see a blurry boundary around- ie a Venn diagram, with overlapping characteristic traits.
At 11:44 AM,
Joe G said…
A family tree is only partially ordered. Each marriage represents a cross between different lineages.
Limited common descent is a family tree.
Universal common descent is built on limited common descent.
At 4:00 PM,
blipey said…
Do you seriously not know the difference between a family tree and a paternal family tree?
You're stupider than I thought.
Please, for the edification of your 6 readers, explain the difference between the two.
At 10:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you seriously not know the difference between a family tree and a paternal family tree?
Of course I do.
Did you have a point?
Do you seriously think that a son is NOT a descendent of his father?
Do you seriously think that a son does NOT have a mother?
Do you seriously NOT understand the following?:
You cannot have a paternal family tree without a mother. Biology 101.
Do you seriously STILL NOT have a valid reference to support you nonsensical claims?
At 10:52 PM,
blipey said…
Okay. So I take it you don't have any idea what the difference is. If you did, you might actually have answered the question.
I will show you how it's done. And, by doing so, will give you a giant clue as to what your answer is.
Of course you can have a paternal family tree without a mother. What you can't have without a mother is a FAMILY. A family is not a family tree.
Now, would you care to answer your question?
At 10:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Of course you can have a paternal family tree without a mother.
Sexual reproduction demonstrates a mother is required for a father to have a son.
IOW once again you have demonstrated that you are an ignorant fuck.
Do you seriously think that a son is NOT a descendent of his father?
"A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy."
Is a paternal family tree a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy?
Yes it is.
Therefor it is a partially ordered set.
Game over chump- you lose- as usual.
At 10:54 AM,
blipey said…
Once again you have failed to address any specific points brought up in the conversation so far. I'm not sure why this is so complicated.
Please address the specific points brought up during the flow of argument.
1. What is the difference between a family tree and a paternal family tree (or do you think they are the exact same thing?)?
2. What is the difference between a family and a family tree (or do you think they are the exact same thing?)?
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Some definitions of paternal:
paternal:
• adjective 1 of, like, or appropriate to a father. 2 related through the father.
paternal
1 a: of or relating to a father b: like that of a father (paternal benevolence)2: received or inherited from one's male parent3: related through one's father (paternal grandfather)
Paternal
1. Of or pertaining to one's father, his genes, his relatives, or his side of a family; contrasted with maternal; as, "paternal grandfather" (one's father's father).
2. Fatherly; behaving as a father.
3. Received or inherited from one's father.
4. committed by a father; as, "paternal filicide" (murder of a son by his father).
Perhaps Zachriel and blipey have their own definition of "paternal"- there isn't anything in the standard and well accepted definitions that supports their sad story that a paternal family tree only consists of a father, his sons, their sons, and so on.
And if you google "paternal family tree", you will get a result like:
Our Paternal Family Tree
IOW once again it appears that these guys have made something up to try to support their sad claims.
At 11:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Once again you have failed to address any specific points brought up in the conversation so far.
Your projection is duly noted.
So how about it clowny? Do you care to address the points I have made?
At 3:38 PM,
blipey said…
Great; we have a starting point. Joe thinks that a paternal family tree and a family tree are the exact same thing.
We do not yet know if he thinks that a family is the exact same thing as a family tree. I suspect that he does, however.
At 4:38 PM,
Anonymous said…
I am curious as to your answer to these 2 questions too! How 'bout you answer them instead of providing definitions of the word "paternal"? Or are you smart enough to know you will prove your erroneousness?
Oh, and I know you won't publish this, because you are a moron. But not to worry. I have duped your site, and provide all the comments you won't publish!
1. What is the difference between a family tree and a paternal family tree (or do you think they are the exact same thing?)?
2. What is the difference between a family and a family tree (or do you think they are the exact same thing?)?
Good luck!!
At 5:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Great; we have a starting point. Joe thinks that a paternal family tree and a family tree are the exact same thing.
Thanks for once again proving you are an ignorant moron.
A paternal family tree is about the FATHER'S side- all ancestors and descendents. Just as the references show.
A maternal family tree is about the MOTHER'S side- all ancestors and descendents.
A family tree is a combination of both.
That said the word you are looking for is patrilineagebr/>>:
Line of descent as traced through men on the paternal side of a family.
And a lineage is NOT a nested hierarchy.
At 5:35 PM,
blipey said…
See how easy it is to present new info in a comment, Joe? You should try it more often.
At 5:42 PM,
Joe G said…
See how easy it is to present new info in a comment, Joe? You should try it more often.
I do- you just have a reading comprehension issue.
At 5:49 PM,
Joe G said…
Hey rishy-
Is a son a descendent or not?
Zachriel doesn't seem to think so.
Is any family tree a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy?
Zachriel seems to think not.
As for the difference between a family and a family tree- you need to have a family before you can create a family tree.
At 5:54 PM,
blipey said…
You really don't need a family to be able to create a family tree. You could make one up. The point is, again, that a family tree is a construct, Joe. As a construct, it has rules that allow us to construct it. Those rules can satisfy the requirements for a nested hierarchy.
At 6:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Is a son a descendent or not?
Zachriel doesn't seem to think so.
Is any family tree a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy?
Zachriel seems to think not.
Please refrain from misrepresenting my views, which I have explained to you many times.
At 8:17 PM,
Anonymous said…
Joe, Joe, Joe. Of course you need to have a family if you are going to graphically illustrate the lineage as a tree. But, you must admit, a family and a family tree are two very different things. One exists as matter (human beings) and one is a graphical representation of that matter (the humans). I suppose there could be many different trees that could be drawn from one very real family; you could draw the paternal lineage, maternal lineage, intermarriage lineage (in your case?) and on and on.
Why don't you stick to answering questions, and asking straight forward questions, instead of all the obfuscating and question begging?
You seem to get into trouble when you purposely do not address a question that you claim to have the answer for, but won't illuminate it till someone else does it for you. Indeed, that is the problem with ID; you need science to prove it, and science cannot prove it. In fact, ID is not based on science, as you well know, and have even attempted to prove it with science as you show here in this blog which is dedicated to finding, scientifically, what cannot be found scientifically.
When you are ready to give up, and put you rather competent and practiced skills to work for something productive, let us know, here on your blog. You will garner respect, and maybe a better job!
At 8:28 PM,
Anonymous said…
Oh, and Zachriel said no such thing. He said it is a special case. Be careful, Joe. Read carefully. A family is made of other families. Pick one side or the other, and don't mingle terms. Your either trying to confuse, or are confused.
At 7:44 AM,
Joe G said…
*A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy.
One's descendents include crosses with other families.
A son is a descendent. AND any family tree is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy.
Zachriel disagreed with both as evidenced by his responses.
IOW I did not misrepresent Zachriel.
I gave Zachriel pleanty of time to answer and he refused to do so.
At 7:45 AM,
Joe G said…
You really don't need a family to be able to create a family tree.
Yes you do.
You could make one up.
So it's OK for YOU to make shit up but you have a hissy fit when I do. Got it.
At 7:54 AM,
Joe G said…
Oh, and Zachriel said no such thing. He said it is a special case.
Zachriel is full of shit. Either it is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy or it isn't.
Zachriel HAD to pull SOMETHING out of his ass in order to TRY to save face.
At 7:58 AM,
Joe G said…
In fact, ID is not based on science, as you well know, and have even attempted to prove it with science as you show here in this blog which is dedicated to finding, scientifically, what cannot be found scientifically.
ID is based on observation, scientific data and evidence.
UCD via genetic accidents has NEVER been observed, and there isn't any scientific data that supports the premise.
At 8:00 AM,
Joe G said…
And rishy,
Why are YOU immune to answering questions?
I say it is because you are an intellectual coward.
At 8:02 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
You really don't need a family to be able to create a family tree.
rishy:
Of course you need to have a family if you are going to graphically illustrate the lineage as a tree.
The moron twins can't even get their story straight.
<< Home