Calculating the Smith set?

[Mike Ossipoff]

Bruce:

If "Any alternative is a member of the Smith set if it beats or
ties a member of the Smith set" is vague, then could you tell us
more than 1 meaning that it could have. If not, then it's you who
are being vague.

You said that "Any alternative is a member of the Smith set if it's
beaten by no more alternatives than is some member of the Smith set"
is "...a tautology at best". What does that mean? If it's a tautology
at best, then what is it at worst? Or did you have anything in mind
worse than that that it could be. Also, my dictionary is just a 
pocketbook size dictionary, so I have to admit that I don't know what
a tautology is. 

But it doesn't matter, because whatever a tautology is, and whether or
not that statement is one, it's a useful way of finding out if an 
alternative is a member of the Smith set.

This is another example of either dishonesty on your part, Bruce,
or extreme distance from the goals that we're working toward. Once
it's been counted how many alternatives each alternative is beaten
by, if we can admit to the Smith set every alternative not beaten
by more alternativess than some member of the Smith set, that
reduces the time & labor of deterniming the Smith set.

So the philosophical notion of a "tautology" is pretty irrelevant
here, since we're not talking about philosophy, but are talking
about convenient ways of determining the Smith set.

I'm sorry, but considering a number of your statements, I have to
vote for the dishonesty theory.

Mike



--