Date: Mar 25, 2013 4:09 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 24 Mrz., 23:47, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ffdaee63-1e7b-4430-afb8-62c4bfe0a...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 24 Mrz., 02:30, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > Given: that deleting anyone set from a union of sets does not decrease
> > > the union the set of remaining sets,

>
> > > THEN: Decreasing that union will require, if possible at all, deleting
> > > more than one member set, but deleting more than one member set still
> > > may not alsays decrease the union.

>
> > > Example: 100 different subsets each of 99 elements out of their union of
> > > 100 elements. Then the union of the set of any two  or more of them
> > > equals the union of the set of all 100 of them.

>
> > Enumerate the sets. Then there will be a first set that, when
> > subtracted from the union, will change the union of the remaining
> > sets.

>
> In every ennumeration it will be the 99th set, but in different
> ennumerations it will be usually a different one of the original set.


My proof concerns the natural enumeration of FISONs. And there it
holds.

Regards, WM