The complications I found were: Linearity (as implied by descending...) is
not represented well on a 2D graph--but I assume the relationship would
hold. Point zero has a different set of characteristics (infinite?) than
other coordinates (which suggests that the relationship might be a parabola
and never reach 100% probability). The relationship remains undefined--the
"ancestor" is either ancestor, or descendent (perhaps both or neither) and
the relationship is therefore true or false (both? neither?).
Is the statement perhaps an axiom? And if so, what does that say about
axioms? For example: Remember, I proposed the statement in an attempt to
falsify the statement that all descendants have a common ancestor. I am
curious how many isosomantic versions of an axiom falsify each other while
at the same time verifying each.)
Brett
was ashamed of my spelling and wanted to send this again...spell checked
BR
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Brain, v. [as in "to brain"]:
To rebuke bluntly, but not pointedly; to dispel a source of
error in an opponent.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"