Return-Path:
Return-Path: <john.harrison-request@uk.ac.cam.cl>
Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP)
          id <29103-0@swan.cl.cam.ac.uk>; Tue, 30 Jul 1991 15:07:41 +0100
Received: from [146.101.100.10] by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (15.11/1.34) id AA07795;
          Mon, 29 Jul 91 00:35:21 pdt
X400-Received: by mta hedera.stl.stc.co.uk in /PRMD=STC Plc/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/;
               Relayed; Mon, 29 Jul 1991 08:32:23 +0100
X400-Received: by /PRMD=stc plc/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/; converted (ia5); Relayed;
               Mon, 29 Jul 1991 08:37:00 +0100
X400-Received: by /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/; Relayed;
               Mon, 29 Jul 1991 08:27:11 +0100
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1991 08:27:11 +0100
X400-Originator: R.B.Jones@gb.gold-400.icl.icl.win0103
X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/;win0103 0000010300000778]
Original-Encoded-Information-Types: undefined
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Content-Identifier: 778
From: R.B.Jones@gb.gold-400.icl.icl.win0103
Message-Id: <"778*/I=RB/S=Jones/OU=win0103/O=icl/PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/"@MHS>
To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Subject: A final word on choice?







         Apologies to Josh Guttman if I misunderstood his point.

         In response to his clarification a brief reiteration of my main
         point:

              The choice function is NOT SPECIAL, any loosely defined
              function (introduced using "new_specification" with a
              property which is satisfied by more than one value) has just
              as arbitrary a value in an arbitrary model of the
              specification.

              Not only is the axiom of choice "just like any other axiom"
              but also the choice function could have been introduced just
              like any other "new_specification", and behaves just as if it
              had been.

         Roger Jones