Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!pta.pyramid.com.au!major>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1991 10:48:26 +0900
From: Major <cbmvax!uunet!pta.pyramid.com.au!major>
Message-Id: <199108190148.AA25343@pta.pyramid.com.au>
To: lojban-list@snark.thyrsus.com
Subject: Subset
X-Mailer: GNU emacs 18.57
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Sun Aug 18 23:54:49 1991
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!pta.pyramid.com.au!major

Mark E. Shoulson <shoulson@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu> writes:

> Um, no.  {lo} is defined (draft lesson, p. 5-26): "a referent which is a
> *subset* of the set ... [whose members] accurately [meet] the x1 sumti of
> the bridi relationship ..." (emphasis mine, and I replaced the set with its
> members, since that what was meant).  So (unless something's changed), I
> can use {lo} to mean a (possibly empty) subset, not the whole.

In math (at least my high school math) 'subset' includes the whole
'proper subset' is any subgrouping except the whole. Which is 'lo'?

Major