David Hobby wrote:
>
> 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.
OK, case 1, of the guy related to me where I believe it's 17/2^N: He is
my third cousin from one pair of ancestors; my fourth cousin from a
second pair of ancestors; my fourth cousin from a third pair of
ancestors; and my sixth cousin from a fourth pair of ancestors.
My uncle calculated the degree of relation (all his children are related
to him through the same sets of ancestors), and he's slightly more
closely related to me than a second cousin would be. If we know what k
is for saying the second-cousin fraction is 1/2^k, then the relation
degree is as you give above. (1/2^k for 2nd cousin, 1/2^(k+4) for sixth
cousin. At least, that's what it ought to be, yes? Or am I off? If
so, please correct me!)
Case 2, myself, I am my own sixth cousin through the pair of ancestors
by which I'm that cousin's sixth cousin (that one was a marriage of
second cousins) and I am my own ninth cousin through a pair of ancestors
on the other side (that one was a marriage of first cousins). So I am
sixth cousin and ninth cousin to my sister, as well as being her
sibling. The extra fraction of relation in that case is small enough to
be trivial, but possibly of interest.
Julia
who knows how many ancestors she has in common with that cousin at the
generation where you'd expect to have 128 ancestors; it's 34. (And she
herself only has 126 there.)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
