From sentto-44114-2190-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sat Mar 04 02:24:01 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 30438 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 02:24:00 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 02:24:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 5313 invoked by uid 40001); 4 Mar 2000 02:24:03 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 5310 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 02:24:02 -0000 Received: from ej.egroups.com (208.50.144.75) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 02:24:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2190-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.38] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2000 02:23:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 6337 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 02:23:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Mar 2000 02:23:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 02:23:57 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.28.28c3f4a (4360) for ; Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:23:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <28.28c3f4a.25f1cdb7@aol.com> To: lojban@onelist.com X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 30 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:23:51 EST X-eGroups-From: Pycyn@aol.com From: pycyn@aol.com Subject: [lojban] Final Clubs oops Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: pycyn@aol.com OK so it doesn't quite work yet. The club structure Jorge and all have been fussing with shows this, since {A} is a maximally proclusive set, as {B,C}, so the set of final clubs is the null, when it ought to have been {B, C} or {A} or something. Or maybe not. But there is soemthing else clearly wrong about that definition of mine (based on similar problems but apparently not perfectly similar ones): the intersection will obviously not in general be maximally proclusive, since it is in several presumably larger set which are maximal, so adding any of the dropped items will not make it lose it proclusivity. We could avoid the first problem by requiring that there actually be precluded pairs, I suppose. And the last is not really a problem, only a peculiarity: that there could in general be more final clubs than there are, but that there would not then be a unique definition of which clubs are final. Given that there is such a definition (the basis of the problem), these two factors seem required. Now, is there a solution that doesn't require this metaproblematic adhocery? pc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/937/1/_/17627/_/952136637/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com