<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I am working on an idea that has evolved over the past few days. If anyone here is a genealogy hipster and can see that I am reinventing the wheel, do feel free to offer reproof and correction publicly. I have thick skin.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>OK so now we have all this genetic info in a standardized accessible form from 23andMe. I am working on an algorithm I call triangulation, which is where you find two relatives on your list who are both related to you but not to each other. Then with either resulting set we should be able to infer (or narrow down) from that triangulation team the mutual ancestors from removing the non-mutual ancestors of the non-related pair. I may be inventing terminology for concepts that are already well known; do clue me if you have one. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If we do this iteratively we can create a ring of triads as follows: Abdulcader, Butthead and Crunk form a triad where Abdulcader and Crunk are unrelated, Butthead, Crunk, and Doodledum form a triad where Butthead and Doodledum are unrelated and so on, continue until we figure out a way to create a triad of Konkleschnortz, Lamedick and Abdulcader, where Konkleschnortz and Abdulcader are unrelated but both are related to Lamedick. Then each person in the ring of 12 people are in three triads each; in two triads they share DNA with one person and one triad they share DNA with both. With that info, we should be able to slice and dice the ancestors by comparing which names show up where.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This seems like something that could have been done a long time ago with traditional genealogy, but this time we have actual physical evidence, which would eliminate the risk of errors from misinformation and disinformation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ideas please: as a test, is there a way to get a dozen of us, or fewer, make an excel file with columns of 64 numbers, each a random integer between 0 and 255. We define as sisters those columns which share an average of 32 numbers. Cousin columns share 16, second cousins 8 and so on. Next I form the triads, and see if I can get the algorithm to find which columns are related to which. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>From that, I should be able to figure out which column is related to which by triangulation, ja?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In real life, I am working on forming my first actual triad with actual DNA relatives, both of which are dedicated genealogists. I am having a hell of a time explaining the concept.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>If this scheme works, it could cause the phase change Anders warned us against. It also points right at the ethical blind spot I mentioned that started this whole thing: I go into a tailspin as soon as I hold info that could cause damage, but I shamelessly work on an algorithm that would blindly triangulate and gigahertzly produce the same information a million times over. I work on that algorithm without losing a wink of sleep over it, knowing that once that algorithm is out there I have zero control over it. This is vaguely analogous to those who would work on AI, knowing that it could escape from the lab and create a completely unpredictable mixture of good and bad consequences. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Help me, Anders-Wan KeSandberg, you’re our only hope. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Actually anyone here is welcome to either instruct on the rightness/wrongness of even thinking about doing something like this, or alternately, offer much-needed assistance with the algorithm.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>