From sentto-44114-2194-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sat Mar 04 14:23:25 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 31133 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 14:23:24 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 14:23:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 23123 invoked by uid 40001); 4 Mar 2000 14:23:29 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 23120 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 14:23:28 -0000 Received: from ej.egroups.com (208.50.144.75) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 14:23:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2194-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 04 Mar 2000 14:23:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 20295 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 14:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Mar 2000 14:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.31) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 14:23:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 49482 invoked by uid 0); 4 Mar 2000 14:23:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000304142323.49481.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.32 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2000 06:23:23 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.32] To: lojban@onelist.com 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: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 06:23:23 PST X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] Final Clubs oops Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >We could avoid the first problem by requiring that there >actually be precluded pairs, I suppose. No, the problem remains: Suppose the case where {A, B} are mutually preclusive and {C, D} are mutually preclusive but there is no crossed preclusion. Then both sets are maximally preclusive, and the intersection is still null. >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. Ah, but then you're changing the definition! It would no longer be the case that a club such that membership in it precludes membership in any final club is always 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? Only to admit that the so called "definition" is not a real definition unless taken in a very limited context: when membership in any club precludes membership in any other club. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR! 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/1/2121/1/_/17627/_/952179804/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com