My Understanding (hypothetically)

Snikwas, you say"a closed set, i.e. (1, 2) can be defined to be a kind which allows for infinite variation given that the numbers that fall between 1 and 2 are infinite."This is nonsense. Please explain how any member of the (1,2) set is distinguished from the (2,3) setMickThis message has been edited by mick, 02-21-2005 19:58 AMThis message has been edited by mick, 02-21-2005 20:00 AM

Brad has already stated (in previous posts) that 1.5s aren't allowed. He is talking modular arithmetic; it's either in the set or it isn't.I'm afraid Brad has learned a few cool buzzwords in mathematical biology (that were fashionable in the 70s) but doesn't really understand how mathematical biology works. I have a fair amount of experience in mathematical biology. I'm not a very good mathematician, but I know bullshit when I see it. I will repeat a challenge I made in a different post, and request that Brad give a worked example.Giving a coherent worked example is considered that basic minimum of proof in mathematical biology. Giving a load of pseudo-mathematical waffle definitely isn't helping debate. I am willing to challenge Brad on the basis of mathematics, but I only request that he is able to provide a worked numerical example of his thesis.mick

Hi Brad,I'm sorry if I appear to be picking on you! I'm only entering this forum in a spirit of argument and learning. But I am trained as a statistician, and I find your comments controversial!Best wishes and regards,Mick

Hi Brad,I'm sorry you don't like my tone. I honestly didn't mean it to be offensive. I am definitely not trying to "stalk you around evc to shut you up". I have clearly caused offense (though I think I have only asked perfectly reasonable questions). But I am new here and don't want to upset anybody, and will leave you to your ranting without challenge from now on.Mick