From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Mar 04 06:23:08 2000 Received: (qmail 20295 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 14:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Mar 2000 14:23:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.31) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 14:23:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 49482 invoked by uid 0); 4 Mar 2000 14:23:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20000304142323.49481.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.32 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2000 06:23:23 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.32] To: lojban@onelist.com 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" From: "Jorge Llambias" 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