Re: [TIED] Mitochondrial Eve [was: IE, AA, Nostratic, etc.]

Piotr:

>If we proceed in this fashion, we can define G3 which can���t be >larger
>than G2, G4 which can���t be larger than G4, etc. The sets Gn >get smaller
>and smaller as n increases, and G(n+1) always contains all >the
>mitochondrial genes to be inherited by Gn. Will the size of Gn >ever reduce
>to 1? It should, except in the extremely unlikely case >that the size of
>Gn, G(n+1), G(n+2), etc., should remain forever >greater than 1 but
>constant.

This is precisely why I'm not a mathematician :)

- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com