Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 30197 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 22:59:40 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 22:59:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 27826 invoked by uid 40001); 3 Mar 2000 22:59:42 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 27823 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 22:59:36 -0000 Received: from hi.egroups.com (208.48.218.11) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 22:59:36 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2186-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2000 22:59:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 20482 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 22:54:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Mar 2000 22:54:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.49) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 22:54:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 37671 invoked by uid 0); 3 Mar 2000 22:54:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20000303225450.37670.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.41 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:54:50 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 14:54:50 PST X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] final clubs Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 2137 Lines: 66 From: "Jorge Llambias" la karl cusku di'e >Perhaps the definition is flawed. I assumed that the >designation 'final' was applied to clubs _after_ they were >subjected to the test condition (that they precluded >membership in each other). It is applied at the same time, since it is a circular definition. You take the proposed set of final sets and test if they comply. If you test {B, C} it passes. If you test {A} it also passes. (Assuming no existential import in the definition.) Therefore, there is no well defined set of final clubs, as there are two competing suitable and incompatible candidates. >That is to say, they're >final clubs because they're mutually exclusive, not >mutually exclusive because they're final clubs. Both things. > > ... You cannot join both B and C, but > > that is not enough to make them final. > >Excuse me? That is _exactly_ the definition of a final club, Yes, when it gives a single set of final clubs. But not when more than one set is possible. >I disagree. You could call A final if there weren't any >other candidates for final clubs, but there aren't any >conditions in A's bylaws to license that deduction in >any non-vacuous way. If what you object to is the vacuous satisfaction of the definition by A, then use this new definition for well defined final sets: Final sets are all sets with some preclusion. In your example, the situation is one where B and C are well defined final sets. To prove my new definition wrong you need a situation where a club with some preclusion is not final. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE! 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/1/2122/1/_/17627/_/952124093/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com