At 11:39 16/12/96 -0600, Zaimoni wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:
>
>> At 00:48 16/12/96 -0600, zaimoni (I'm sure I'll work out whether that's your
>> full name, surname, or what, soon, but for now, excuse me) wrote:
>> >On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:
Now, I'm going to come out with it: Zaimoni-person... how do you want to be
referred to?
>[CLIP]
>
>> >2) I would phrase it as the freedom-consciousness inequalities.
>>
>> Ah! Why? Are we talking Venn diagram overlaps here? Sorry, you're talking to
>> someone who's only been FORGETTING maths for the last 10 years I'm afraid.
>
>Yes, that's one context to interpret it in.
Good... although I didn't even really understand THAT context... a lucky strike.
>Actually, you don't seem to be forgetting it too fast; I'm interpreting
>the inclusion relation as an underpowered "<". [It isn't always
>defined, but it works properly otherwise....] The technical term
>is "partially ordered set", or "poset".
So... Big set = consciousness, subset = freedom? I was kind of aiming for
freedom being EMPTY set.
There is no such thing as anything.
Phonecalls: 01494 461648 Phights: 10 Riverswood Gardens
High Wycombe
HP11 1H
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 23 2002 - 04:00:34 MDT