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