  But how many such factors are there, and when do they play a non-zero role in fitness? The answer is that the number of such factors is probably indefinitely large. The reason for this is given by the facts about natural selection as Darwin and his successors uncovered them. The fact about selection which fates our “definition” either to being forever schematic or incomplete is the “arms-race” strategic character of evolutionary interaction. Since every strategy for enhancing reproductive fitness (including how many offspring to have in a given environment) calls forth a counter-strategy among competing organisms (which may undercut the initial reproductive strategy), the number of conditions covered by our ceteris paribus clause, or equivalently the number of places in the function \(f(E,\sigma^2,\ldots)\) is equal to the number of strategies and counter-strategies of reproduction available in an environment. Brandon writes, “in the above definition of \(A^*(O,E)\), the function \(f(E,\sigma^2)\) is a dummy function in the sense that the form can be specified only after the details of the selection scenario have been specified” (20). But, besides the fact Brandon admits, that the function \(f\) will differ for different \(O\) and \(E\), \(f\) will have to be expanded to accommodate an indefinite number of further statistical terms beyond variance. Schematically, it will take the form \(f(E,\sigma^2,\ldots)\). Again, adapting Brandon’s notation, none of the members of the set which express his multiply generic “definition” of “adaptedness” or “expected fitness”,  \(\{\Sigma P(Q_i^{OE})Q_i^{OE} - f_1(E,\sigma^2, \ldots)\),  \(\Sigma P(Q_i^{OE})Q_i^{OE} - f_2(E,\sigma^2, \ldots)\),  \(\Sigma P(Q_i^{OE})Q_i^{OE} - f_3(E,\sigma^2, \ldots)\),  \(\ldots\}\),   is in fact a definition of either term. It is the set of operational measurements of the property of comparative fitness.