Re:[Lojban](unknown) Addendum

[pycyn@aol.com]

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