Mendel's math as Conway nim genetics

7/30/2019 Mendel's math as Conway nim genetics

1/6

Notes on Mendels Nim genetics?

Finding Batesons meristic variation in linear point sets per topologically equivalent substantial variation

in geographic places.

It was, so to say, a law of embryological development governing the form which the mature organism

would assume.Olby

Is not the difference between recessive and dominant a nim removal tetrated to a larger prime space ofplaces between attractions and repulsions coded by the particular amino acids in the given trait that

resulted in different alleomorphs? Can this be shown in game theory of social selection as NCE threat

points are removed from a social evolution of cooperative multi-dimensionally increasing NBS

representations?

That is the relation of the mathematical binomial combination and the hybrid expression of character

pairs per species. Phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny mathematically not ontogeny recapitulates

phylogeny mechanically (pre reciprocity).


2/6

This centered on the character-pair rather than on the species. This is bridged by the similar patterns

between primes transfinite and finite as a well ordering (on purpose) but decomposed into an ontology

of arbitrary objects per constructive equality that eliminates the same across more than two

generations.

http://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html

Can we use roots (beyond square which would be between F1 and F2) to look at ancestralness in

living distributions and things? Thus if 1 =1^3 can 2 be a third root of a nim-multiplicationsuch that the nim genetics expresses the past reproductive path (with the difference from regular

multiplication being in elimination of dominant-recessive differences per heterozygosity?).

The more we pry into the language of Mendel's text the less confident do we become that he

had the concept of the gene in mind when he wrote it. Olby

He has the idea of the gene under tetrational social selection to primes with nim arithemetic?

the nim-sum of a number of distinct 2-powers is their ordinary sum (e.g., and,

the nim-sum of two equal numbers is 0.When Mendel does not use AA but rather only A for A + 2Aa +a did he actually have a

demonstration of a nim sum as null and thus not signed? (2Aa distinct but aa or AA not distinct(left vs right combined drawing forces are not distinct)2Aa could produce a different torque

depending on the environment somatic and otherwise but aa or AA would not)?

But, you object, he proposed the law of segregation. Did he not state that the two elements

which determine alternative expressions of the same trait (e.g., round/wrinkled seeds) separate in

the formation of the germ cells, with the result that only one of them is to be found in any of the

germ cells? No! He wrote: 'In the formation of these [germ] cells [of the hybrid] all elements
http://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.htmlhttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.htmlhttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html


3/6

participate in a perfectly free and equal arrangement, whereby only the differing elements are

mutually exclusive.' In quoting this and similar passages in 1979, I wrote:

http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/on2-conways-nim-arithmetics.html

It is all too easy to invest these passages with significance born of hindsight. Granted thatMendel was committed to a materialist explanatory framework, i.e., that the characteristics of

living organisms are determined by material entities in the cells. Admitting that he was seeking

an explanatory hypothesis in harmony with the cell theory, in particular with the cell theory of

fertilization, how far did he go in his conception of a particulate theory of heredity? First it is

evident that he did not conceive of pairs of elements in the cell representing and determining the

pairs of contrasted characters. If he had this conception he would have allowed a separation

between like members of such pairs as well as between unlike members . His statement that 'only

the differing elements are mutually exclusive" is in conflict with classical Mendelian genetics.

Olby

This seems to express Conway nim arithemetic where similar elements are zero when summed.

If it were true [and assuming he had the concept of a pair of factors for each character pair] the

number of like elements determining a character would increase every time the germ cells fused

in fertilization. Mendel cannot therefore have had the conception of a finite number of hereditary

elements which in the simplest case is two per character [pair]. (Olby, 1979, p. 70)
http://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#Olbyhttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#Olbyhttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#Olbyhttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#Olby


4/6

So did Mendel notice the last differing coordinate in the hybrid itself? The binomial develops

until it no longer differs and seperates out into recessive and dominant characterizations of the

driving and drawing forces prior.

Added to this evidence is the well-known absence of double letters to represent the pure breeding

offspring of hybrids in Mendel's scheme. Thus the three classes in this second hybrid generation

(F2) are given the symbols:A + 2Aa + a rather thanAA + 2Aa + aa. Olby

If these letters refer to the hereditary elements or factors to which Wilhelm Johannsen later gave

the name 'gene', we would expect Mendel to have used double letters for each class. To defend

Mendel's claim to the gene concept geneticists have indulged in special pleading thus: 'It is but


5/6

an abridged way of expression. It was perfectly clear to Mendel that those elements occurred

paired in homozygotes . . .' Or: 'throughout the papers (and even in his later correspondence with

the botanist Ngeli) he has described the three classes of individuals in an F2 as A, Aa and a,

evading the unproved doubleness of the "homozygote" AA class.'

So can we see Mendels Pisum Phaseolus difference in the hybrids developed from the prior entries pergeneration?

(primes tetrated to under social selection)

http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/aaron-siegel-on-transfinite-number-hacking.html
http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/aaron-siegel-on-transfinite-number-hacking.htmlhttp://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/aaron-siegel-on-transfinite-number-hacking.htmlhttp://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/aaron-siegel-on-transfinite-number-hacking.html


6/6

Can the populational genetic sum of individual behavior socially selected be understood as a genetic

tetration of nim multiplication?

And can the 3:1 ratio misread by Darwin and De Vires be read out of the multiplication under extended

exponentation in the reciprocal elastic combination?

The character-pair was moreover a novel concept introduced by Mendel and in terms of which hedefined dominance and recessiveness. Second, Mendel not only counted hybrid progeny and classified

them in terms of these character-pairs, but he perceived in the numerical relationships between the

different classes approximations to simple integral ratios. Other hybridists counted progeny - even

recording what with the light of hindsight we can call Mendelian ratios - but they did not perceive their

data in this way. It is an empirical fact, recorded by Charles Darwin, that the progeny from hybrids

between the normal and the peloric snapdragon showed reversion: 88 normal to 37 peloric, and 2

intermediate. If we discount the intermediates we have a ratio of 2.38 :1. But how did Darwin perceive

it? Besides there existing a 'strong latent tendency to become peloric', he remarked, 'there is a still

stronger tendency in all peloric plants to reacquire their normal irregular shape.' He went on to lament

that prepotency varied so much in strength, 'even in regard to the same character, in different animals.'

Therefore he was not surprised that 'no one has hitherto succeeded in drawing up general rules on the

subject of prepotency.' (Darwin, 1868, vol.ii, p.45-46) In a like manner, Hugo de Vries, only a year before

he rediscovered Mendelian ratios, recorded F2 figures for corn of 3167 yellow to 1092 white seeds. This

is a ratio of 2.90 : 1. But what did De Vries comment? Merely that these corn hybrids were capable 'of

reproducing the types of their two parents.' (De Vries, 1899, p.973) Thus a Mendelian ratio is not an

empirical fact but a theory-laden one. It is the theoretical component that identifies certain data among

a host of figures as peculiarly significant.Olby
http://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#Darwinhttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#Darwinhttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#Darwinhttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#DeVrieshttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#DeVrieshttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#DeVrieshttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#DeVrieshttp://www.mendelweb.org/MWolby.html#Darwin

Documents

Mendel's math as Conway nim genetics