Hi Jerry (and others),

> I was deliberately vague about what was meant by
> diffusion theory, as I suspect was our mathematician.

Well that explains a bit.  I had a feeling we were being "baited", the
question seemed too open ended and ill-defined for a science guy of your
reputation.  The answer seemed to me, "obviously bees' forage can't be
defined by difusion theory, as there is an impacting force, a direction and
purpose to bee forage that negates simple difusion models".

The point Blane made, that an extended time frame would make forage patterns
more closely approximate a difusion patter was something I had not
considered.  However, I think that point boils down to a statement like,
"Over time plant bloom may approximate a difusion pattern."  Bee forage
however remains a directed activity with a directed purpose.

I think your math buddy is improperly applying a model to a phenominon where
it can't be applied.
Signals from radar, cell phones, etc. are electromagnetic waves, difusion
theories apply.  Bee forage is directed and purposful.  Even if a lengthy
time parameter is a factor, difusion models seem inappropriate.

Aaron Morris - IMHO stating the obvious.  Still thinking math (when properly
applied) rules!