On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 11:22 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sets do not exist solely because of this contract, so oddballs are not
> assets, and the Lost and Found Department does not own any. Nor does
> Ivan Hope CXXVII, who is not permitted by the Rules or by the contract
> to award them. I (proto-)judge CFJs 1986-7 FALSE.
I was not using the {a,b} notation with the intention that it would
indicate a set, though of course, that notation is commonly used to
indicate sets. The contract doesn't state whether this was set
notation or a new notation, but it does state that oddballs are
assets. Since set notation would imply that oddballs are a type of set
and therefore not assets, oddballs being assets implies that they are
not a type of set and therefore this is not set notation. In other
words, the contract implies, but doesn't explicitly state, that this
is a new notation that looks identical to set notation.
I agree with the rest of your message entirely.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
