> In fact, I believe we should define another relation of personal
> which is NOT symmetric.
I agree that this has greater relevance to QTI, but note that saying
that "identity" is not symmetric is at odds with most people's usage of
the word. Eg you can't say "x,y have the same identity".
You proposed the notation '<' meaning that if x<y, x is a former state
of y. For the purposes of QTI, I think a more relevant definition of
'<' would be based on successions of growing memories. This would make
it clear that a clone and an original have equal right to prior states
of the SAS.