Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 30171 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 22:42:50 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 22:42:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 27223 invoked by uid 40001); 3 Mar 2000 22:42:52 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 27220 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 22:42:51 -0000 Received: from fl.egroups.com (208.50.144.74) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 22:42:51 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2185-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.36] by fl.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2000 22:42:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 15686 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 22:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Mar 2000 22:42:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.151) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 22:42:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 77149 invoked by uid 0); 3 Mar 2000 22:42:42 -0000 Message-ID: <20000303224242.77148.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.41 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:42:42 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.41] 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: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:42:42 PST X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] final clubs Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1251 Lines: 33 From: "Jorge Llambias" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/_/952123368/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com