Madole & Harden argue that the Mendelian reshuffling of genes and genomes is analogous to randomised controlled trials. We are not convinced by their arguments. First, their recipe for meeting the demands on randomised experiments is inherently inconsistent. Second, disequilibrium across chromosomes conflicts with their assumption of statistical independence. Third, the genome-wide association study (GWAS) method has many pitfalls, including low repeatability.

" There are 31 chapters in 5 parts and approximately 320 exercises marked by difficulty and whether or not they are necessary for further work in the book.

Lab experiments on punishment are of limited relevance for understanding cooperative behavior in the real world. In real interactions, punishment is not cheap, but the costs of punishment are of a different nature than in experiments. They do not correspond to direct payments or payoff deductions, but they arise from the repercussions punishment has on social networks and future interactions.

Selection on grandparental investment is more complex than Coall & Hertwig (C&H) propose. Patterns of investment are subject to an intergenerational conflict over how resources should be distributed to maximize fitness. Grandparents may be selected to distribute resources unevenly, while their descendants will be selected to manipulate investment in their own favor. Here we outline the evolutionary basis of this conflict.

For cardinals we let be the smallest size of a subset B of unbounded in the sense of ; that is, such that there is no function such that has size less than for all . Similarly for , the general dominating number, which is the smallest size of a subset B of such that for every there is an such that the above set has size less than . These cardinals are generalizations of the usual ones for . When (...) all three are the same regular cardinal, the relationships between them have been completely described by Cummings and Shelah. We also consider some variants of the functions, following van Douwen, in particular the version of in which B is required to consist of strictly increasing functions. Some of the main results of this paper are: (1) ; (2) for , always exists; (3) if , then ; (4) . For background see Section 1 of the paper. Several open problems are stated. (shrink)

For any Boolean Algebra A, let cmm be the smallest size of an infinite partition of unity in A. The relationship of this function to the 21 common functions described in Monk [4] is described, for the class of all Boolean algebras, and also for its most important subclasses. This description involves three main results: the existence of a rigid tree algebra in which cmm exceeds any preassigned number, a rigid interval algebra with that property, and the construction of an (...) interval algebra in which every well-ordered chain has size less than cmm. (shrink)

The main notion dealt with in this article is where A is a Boolean algebra. A partition of 1 is a family ofnonzero pairwise disjoint elements with sum 1. One of the main reasons for interest in this notion is from investigations about maximal almost disjoint families of subsets of sets X, especially X=ω. We begin the paper with a few results about this set-theoretical notion.Some of the main results of the paper are:• (1) If there is a maximal family (...) of size λ≥κ of pairwise almost disjoint subsets of κ each of size κ, then there is a maximal family of size λ of pairwise almost disjoint subsets of κ+ each of size κ.• (2) A characterization of the class of all cardinalities of partitions of 1 in a product in terms of such classes for the factors; and a similar characterization for weak products.• (3) A cardinal number characterization of sets of cardinals with a largest element which are for some BA the set of all cardinalities of partitions of 1 of that BA.• (4) A computation of the set of cardinalities of partitions of 1 in a free product of finite-cofinite algebras. (shrink)

We give some results concerning various generalized continuum cardinals. The results answer some natural questions which have arisen in preparing a new edition of 5. To make the paper self-contained we define all of the cardinal functions that enter into the theorems here. There are many problems concerning these new functions, and we formulate some of the more important ones.

We consider eight special kinds of subalgebras of Boolean algebras. In Section 1 we describe the relationships between these subalgebra notions. In succeeding sections we consider how the subalgebra notions behave with respect to the most common cardinal functions on Boolean algebras.

Recall that a subset X of a Boolean algebra A is independent if for any two finite disjoint subsets F , G of X we have ∏ x∈F x ∏ y∈G −y≠0. The independence of a BA A , denoted by Ind, is the supremum of cardinalities of its independent subsets. We can also consider the maximal independent subsets. The smallest size of an infinite maximal independent subset is the cardinal invariant i , well known in the case A= P (...) / fin . In this article we consider the collection of all cardinalities of infinite maximal independent subsets of a BA A ; we call this set the spectrum of infinite maximal independent subsets , denoted by Spind. Note that infinite maximal independent subsets exist in any BA which is not superatomic. The main result is that any set of infinite cardinals can occur as Spind for some infinite BA A . Beyond this we give results concerning the way that Spind changes under various algebraic operations. However, the basic components of most algebras that we deal with are free algebras. (shrink)

The essays in this collection are the outgrowth of a workshop, held in June 1976, on formal approaches to the semantics and pragmatics of natural languages. They document in an astoundingly uniform way the develop ments in the formal analysis of natural languages since the late sixties. The avowed aim of the' workshop was in fact to assess the progress made in the application of formal methods to semantics, to confront different approaches to essentially the same problems on the one (...) hand, and, on the other, to show the way in relating semantic and pragmatic explanations of linguistic phenomena. Several of these papers can in fact be regarded as attempts to close the 'semiotic circle' by bringing together the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties of certain constructions in an explanatory framework thereby making it more than obvious that these three components of an integrated linguistic theory cannot be as neatly separated as one would have liked to believe. In other words, not only can we not elaborate a syntactic description of (a fragment of) a language and then proceed to the semantics (as Montague pointed out already forcefully in 1968), we cannot hope to achieve an adequate integrated syntax and semantics without paying heed to the pragmatic aspects of the constructions involved. The behavior of polarity items, 'quantifiers' like any, conditionals or even logical particles like and and or in non-indicative sentences is clear-cut evidence for the need to let each component of the grammar inform the other. (shrink)