From pycyn@aol.com Sat Mar 04 06:27:24 2000 Received: (qmail 940 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 14:27:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Mar 2000 14:27:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo24.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.68) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 14:27:39 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id h.13.22f6649 (1813) for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:27:20 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <13.22f6649.25f27748@aol.com> Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:27:20 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] pc has got it To: lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 30 X-eGroups-From: Pycyn@aol.com From: pycyn@aol.com Alas, not quite. There may be member of a maximally proclusive set such that being a member of it precludes membership in any final club, yet it may not be a final club itself, since there may be another maximally proclusive set of which it is not a member. In the other set there is probably a similar club, procluding all the final ones, but not the club pointed to in the other set. Both of these sets are final by the original problem (final if procludes any other final) but neither is final by the new definition and there is no way to tell which to add to the set of finals (adding either automatically makes the other non-final). Clearly this "minor complication" can be extended indefintely, so a general solution is required. pc