Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> David Hobby wrote:
>
> > The above would have been easier to state if we had general kinship
> > terms based on degrees of genetic relatedness. Sibling, parent and
> > child are all "halves". Grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece,
> > nephew, half-sibling, and so on are "quarters". And you know you're
> > really a redneck if you need fractions which aren't negative powers
> > of two!
>
> Oh, like 17/2^N for some N? I think that number (not sure what N is)
> describes my kinship relation to a particular someone. Details
> available upon request. (Anyone wanting details to actually calculate
> the mess, ask!)
>
> Julia
>
> whose kinship relation to her sister is actually slightly over 1/2, and
> details on *that* are available upon request, as well, for anyone either
> interested or wanting to calculate *that* particular mess
If you go back far enough, that happens to everyone. So
the value of N is relevant. : )
I don't have a good enough geneology to come near that, though.
I know all my grandparents. On my father's side, that's about it. So
I don't have any known "extra" relationships between my mother and
father--my brother will have to stay at exactly 1/2 from me.
I know parts of my mother's side going back to the 1500's,
and there are a few "circuits" that I know of in those family trees.
So there might be a 17/2^N for me too, I'd have to look. Anyway,
N would be 12 or so, and the individual I was related to by that
much would have been dead for 200+ years. Most of their descendants
would also be 17/2^N from me, for various values of N. Some serious
research would let me name a living one, but by then N is around 20.
So you probably win!
---David
I'm not sure that I have the courage to ask for your details.
This stuff can get messy fast. But I bet that your 17/2^N is
of the form 1/2^k + 1/2^(k+4), since that seems easiest.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
