From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Mar 3 14:42:42 2000 X-Digest-Num: 383 Message-ID: <44114.383.2186.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:42:42 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: final clubs X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2186 la xod cusku di'e >A imposes no conditions. If A were the only final club, it would have >to impose the condition of not joining any other final clubs that should >arise later. > >But {B, C} forbid joining final clubs, according to the oath promising to >swear no other oaths. So they are final. > >If you want to try to create a final club that doesn't swear any oaths, >that goes against the definition. The mirror case is not valid. This is how I interpreted first, but John says that if Joining B precludes joining A, then joining A precludes joining B. Otherwise, you have to argue against my other definition, the one for asymmetrical preclusions. No fair mixing examples like that. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com