Date: Mar 25, 2013 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 24 Mrz., 23:47, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> 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