&gt; &gt; So,
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; 1) The &lt;=&gt; axiom above is invalid and probably could be used to
&gt; &gt; &gt; prove a contradiction.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; 2) An augmented &lt;=&gt; axiom like the one above but disallowing
&gt; &gt; &gt; two receivers, etc., might not lead to contradictions and
&gt; &gt; &gt; a generalization of it might be OK in the SUO.
&gt; &gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; &gt; 3) I certainly would not personally want to
&gt; &gt; &gt; call the change from what precedes the 