From sentto-44114-2226-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Mon Mar 06 14:52:46 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 1537 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2000 14:52:45 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 14:52:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 6303 invoked by uid 40001); 6 Mar 2000 14:52:59 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 6300 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2000 14:52:57 -0000 Received: from fj.egroups.com (208.50.144.72) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 14:52:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2226-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 06 Mar 2000 14:52:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 18649 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2000 14:52:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 6 Mar 2000 14:52:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo13.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.3) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 6 Mar 2000 14:52:48 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.a0.1f11ea7 (8329) for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:52:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:52:45 EST X-eGroups-From: Pycyn@aol.com From: pycyn@aol.com Subject: Re:[Lojban](unknown) Addendum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: pycyn@aol.com To the result add that there are at least two mutually excluding clubs. If there are not, there is not a unique solution even with the global requirement of preclusion. Then any club by itself could be final. I made the changes to get rid of xorxes' result that the final club had to be the set of all clubs to reachable by the definition -- this seemed wrong: (A, B) mutually preclusive, C precluded by neither and, indeed, with two members, one in A, the other in B. But {C} is a maximally preclusive set in the original sense and so would mean the definition gave no solution here. I suppose this amounts to taking the definition as having existential import, which, as you know, I seldom have much trouble doing. The union of maximally preclusive sets, by the bye, is not maximally preclusive, since it is a superset to each of the maximally preclusive sets. pc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/936/1/_/17627/_/952354369/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com