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 of places 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).

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-multiplication such 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

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 that Mendel 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)

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 than AA + 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

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 per generation?

(primes tetrated to under social selection) http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/aaron-siegel-on-transfinite-number-hacking.html

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 he defined 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