From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Mar  3 08:27:19 2000
X-Digest-Num: 382
Message-ID: <44114.382.2160.959273826@eGroups.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 08:27:19 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sets etc.
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2160


>I think we can afford to ignore cases where the definition doesn't 
>converge.
>After all, there really is a Yale and it really does have clubs,
>some of which are really final.

Really? What if a new club comes along. Can't we just call it
the one and only final club and still satisfy the "definition"
for as long as none of the other clubs preclude membership
in it? There's somthing fishy going on.

> > For all values of (C, E, F) within the above domain:
> >
> >  final(C, E, F) <=>
> >    (all[C1]
> >      ((C1 \in C)
> >       => ((C1 \in F)
> >           <=> (all[F1]
> >                 ((F1 \in F)
> >                  => ((C1 = F1)
> >                      ; (pair(C1, F1) \in E)))))).
>
>Looks correct to me.

But this is still circular, isn't it?

According to this, "preclude" is not to be taken as
by the rules of the clubs, but in practice. Is that right?

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com