From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Mar 04 17:46:20 2000 Received: (qmail 4704 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2000 01:46:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Mar 2000 01:46:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.31) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 5 Mar 2000 01:46:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 18985 invoked by uid 0); 5 Mar 2000 01:46:35 -0000 Message-ID: <20000305014635.18984.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.52 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:46:35 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.52] To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Final clubs - the final solution Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:46:35 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" This is my final solution, incorporating pc's ideas: Definition 1: Two clubs are said to be *mutually preclusive* iff membership in one precludes membership in the other. Definition 2: A set of clubs is said to be *maximally preclusive* iff every pair of its members is mutually preclusive and no club that is not a member is mutually preclusive with all of its members. "Definition" 3: The *set of final clubs* is one and only one of the maximally preclusive sets. Preferably not a singleton set, and preferably one whose member clubs are as exclusive as possible, with long traditions, etc. Would that do as a non-circular definition? I'll try translating it to Lojban if it is accepted. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com