Canie;

> (Roger - you should try the 'pre' command in front of and after the diagram = left arrow, the word pre, then right arrow and end with left arrow, slash, the word pre then right arrow - it may help the format)

Those HTML statements are in the message but some browsers don't see them. Look at the source code.

> As far as extra credit (I always take advantage of that in school!) - '2 or more' and 'more than one' seem to define the same thing to me.

Yes, they do. Trick question.

> But - if I understand the 'assignment' 2 or more and more than one seem to be satisfied in sets 2,3,4 & 5 - 3 or more in sets 3, 4 & 5.

Right!

> All sets have at least one quake so they do satisfy all 3 definitions.

Right again! A perfect score for Canie.

> One bit of trouble with the 3 definitions is that you might always be right with all 3 statements if aftershocks are included - if its a large quake aftershocks are likely to follow so at least one and one or more will be satisfied.

One of the tricks of a successful predictor. Jim B. insists it's a valid prediction if you miss the mainshock but catch an aftershock.

I hope it's all right to post these things?

Roger
One thing that bothers me - about 42% of the time is covered with a prediction - that doesn't seem to be very useful.