Re: Can we develop a better definition of extropy?
Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:02:34 -0500

Romana posits various formulations of her re-defintion that avoid that
E-prime naughty word, "is", and concludes that, so put, her attempt

>doesn't seem any worse than Max's Extropy #17 definition . . . .

That depends on what you mean by "any worse". Max's definition clearly aims
at something functionally equivalent to "is". In that sense, using a colon
or a dictionary format "doesn't seem any worse", I suppose.

But, to set aside such trivialities for more substantive concerns, I do think
Romana's defintion is "worse" in that, for reasons I have set forth
elsewhere, it does a worse job of setting forth the necessary and sufficient
attributes of "Extropy".

T.0. Morrow