

Sat, 04 Mar 2000 06:23:23 PST
X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.32]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lojban] Final Clubs oops
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 06:23:23 PST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>

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