From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Mar 04 10:38:13 2000 Received: (qmail 17306 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 18:38:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Mar 2000 18:38:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.31) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 18:38:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 15140 invoked by uid 0); 4 Mar 2000 18:38:28 -0000 Message-ID: <20000304183828.15139.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.37 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2000 10:38:28 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.37] To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Final Clubs oops Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 10:38:28 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2207 la pycyn cusku di'e >Well, the definition isn't a real definition (maybe) except in the context >where there is a set of final clubs. Then, of course, the definition is >just >fine. In the context where there is a unique set of possible final clubs the definition is fine. In all other contexts, there are more than one possible sets, and then we don't have a definition. I don't think there is any possible case where there are no final clubs, unless singleton sets of final clubs are not allowed, in which case there are no final clubs only when no club has any preclusions. >It originated, no doubt, from the selection of one maximally >preclusive set of clubs as the final set. Right. >But once that choice was made -- >however it was made -- the result follows automatically. Yes... Once we know which are the final clubs, they do fit the description. But that is not a definition. >One could even add >new final clubs by simply having them preclude all the current final clubs. Yes. >I gather that Xorxes' remaining problem is to find a way to specify how >that >original choice was made, but that does not seem to be in the definition, >only in the history. Well, then the problem was ill posed. It gave a set of premises (Students are allowed to join zero or more clubs, some clubs are final, a final club is defined as any club such that membership in it precludes membership in any other final club), and we were asked to find a non-circular definition of final clubs. But how can we do that when the premises are insufficient? If it was a problem about the actual situation at Yale, then let us know what are the actual preclusions of Yale's clubs. From the premises given, the only possible conclusion is that all Yale clubs are final. >This is unsatisfying intellectually, but works for the >real world (or wherever Yale happens to be). I don't see how it works at all. All you are telling me is that one of the maximally preclusive sets is the set of final clubs. I agree with that. But that does not define for me the final clubs. Were I to go to Yale and obtain all the preclusion rules of all clubs, I would still be unable to figure out which clubs were final, unless they all were. Does anyone have a list of actual Yale clubs and their preclusion rules? co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com