sci.logic
By Date

2822 messages sorted by: [ thread ]

---

Starting: 12/31/04
Ending: 01/31/05

• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** r.e.s. (01/31/05)
• Re: WWHHOOOOO YEEEEHHHHHH The Ghost In The Machine (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/31/05)
• Re: My claim on Omega's defn |-|erc (01/31/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence.-- "Pastor" Frank the Marcionite Libertarius (01/31/05)
• Re: My claim on Omega's defn Arthur Fischer (01/31/05)
• Re: My claim on Omega's defn Arthur Fischer (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/31/05)
• Re: My claim on Omega's defn rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** r.e.s. (01/31/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. robert j. kolker (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** r.e.s. (01/31/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. LEFTY (01/31/05)
• Re: WWHHOOOOO YEEEEHHHHHH |-|erc (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/31/05)
• Re: WWHHOOOOO YEEEEHHHHHH The Ghost In The Machine (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/31/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/31/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection Don (01/31/05)
• Re: WWHHOOOOO YEEEEHHHHHH |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: My claim on Omega's defn |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE OMEGA ? *********** rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com (01/30/05)
• Re: higher-order logic H. Enderton (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: WWHHOOOOO YEEEEHHHHHH The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: Change Noah Roberts (01/30/05)
• Re: higher-order logic alex goldman (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE OMEGA ? *********** fishfry (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Chris Menzel (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Chris Menzel (01/30/05)
• Re: existential quantifier necessary? Owen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Logical Yoko Site RJ Kellog (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** r.e.s. (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• existential quantifier necessary? alex goldman (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Stephen Harris (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: My claim on Omega's defn Arthur Fischer (01/30/05)
• Re: Are open formulae really needed? Daryl McCullough (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" LordBeotian (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Daryl McCullough (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/30/05)
• Re: Are open formulae really needed? David C. Ullrich (01/30/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality David C. Ullrich (01/30/05)
• WWHHOOOOO YEEEEHHHHHH |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. Pastor Frank (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" LordBeotian (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Change Tom Dickenhari (01/30/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Aatu Koskensilta (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Aatu Koskensilta (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** r.e.s. (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: Are open formulae really needed? Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" LordBeotian (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: Are open formulae really needed? LordBeotian (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? LordBeotian (01/30/05)
• Re: Are open formulae really needed? Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Are open formulae really needed? LordBeotian (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. chris.b_at_mail.dk (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence.-- "Pastor" Frank the Marcionite The_Sage (01/30/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. The_Sage (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• My claim on Omega's defn |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE CHAITIN'S OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" r.e.s. (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's Barb Knox (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" William Elliot (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" William Elliot (01/30/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Torkel Franzen (01/30/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/30/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE OMEGA ? *********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's Barb Knox (01/30/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Keith Ramsay (01/30/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Keith Ramsay (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE OMEGA ? *********** rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com (01/30/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• TEMPERS FLARE IN SCI.LOGIC......ad homs follow |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's |-|erc (01/30/05)
• ******** CAN ANYONE HERE DEFINE OMEGA ? *********** |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Barb Knox (01/30/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's |-|erc (01/30/05)
• Re: A Class of X3SAT Solvable in PolyTime Russell Easterly (01/30/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/30/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/30/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Chris Menzel (01/30/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Chris Menzel (01/30/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Chris Menzel (01/30/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (01/29/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's Barb Knox (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Mike Oliver (01/29/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Daryl McCullough (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Aatu Koskensilta (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/29/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** george (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Aatu Koskensilta (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" george (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/29/05)
• Re: Are open formulae really needed? Aatu Koskensilta (01/29/05)
• Re: Are open formulae really needed? LordBeotian (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Aatu Koskensilta (01/29/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. Pastor Frank (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/29/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's george (01/29/05)
• Re: Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" Torkel Franzen (01/29/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/29/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's Keith A. Lewis (01/29/05)
• Name the thesis: "Formal sentences capture informal ones" tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Mike Oliver (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? LordBeotian (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/29/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? mareg_at_mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk (01/29/05)
• Are open formulae really needed? LordBeotian (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/29/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence.-- "Pastor" Frank the Marcionite Libertarius (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Acme Diagnostics (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS David Bernier (01/29/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. The_Sage (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: Representationalism (to symbolically present) Raving Loonie (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS examachine_at_gmail.com (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Helene.Boucher_at_wanadoo.fr (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection Raving Loonie (01/29/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality David C. Ullrich (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Daryl McCullough (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Torkel Franzen (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/29/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Lee Rudolph (01/29/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar? The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS David Bernier (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection RFHall (01/29/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/29/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's george (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Torkel Franzen (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Acme Diagnostics (01/29/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/29/05)
• Herc defines the HOLY GRAIL OF MATHEMATICS |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person William Elliot (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Dan Christensen (01/29/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person William Elliot (01/29/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar? |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar? The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Torkel Franzen (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Acme Diagnostics (01/29/05)
• So you want APPROACHABLE oo, REAL oo, INTEGER oo, COUNTABLE oo, HIGHER oo, MEGA oo's |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. Libertarius (01/29/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N george (01/29/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. The_Sage (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Jeffrey Ketland (01/29/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N George Cox (01/29/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar? |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Mike Oliver (01/29/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N George Cox (01/29/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/29/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Chris Menzel (01/29/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/29/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N george (01/29/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/29/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/29/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Chris Menzel (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person George Cox (01/28/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. wildbluskies_at_hotmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Jeffrey Ketland (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person George Cox (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Dan Christensen (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Mike Oliver (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person George Cox (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Aatu Koskensilta (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Aatu Koskensilta (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Chairman of the David Hilbert Appreciation Society (01/28/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Alan Smaill (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Aatu Koskensilta (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Chairman of the David Hilbert Appreciation Society (01/28/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Torkel Franzen (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/28/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Tron (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Torkel Franzen (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Torkel Franzen (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Peter Webb (01/28/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Stephan Lehmke (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Torkel Franzen (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Torkel Franzen (01/28/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality David C. Ullrich (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Peter Webb (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Tron (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person Tron (01/28/05)
• Re: higher-order logic Jose Juan Mendoza Rodriguez (01/28/05)
• Re: Help for non-logic person William Elliot (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Jeffrey Ketland (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Jeffrey Ketland (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Help for non-logic person Noah Roberts (01/28/05)
• A Class of X3SAT Solvable in PolyTime Russell Easterly (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Jeffrey Ketland (01/28/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Jeffrey Ketland (01/28/05)
• re: What's the logic inference ability Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. LEFTY (01/28/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/28/05)
• Re: What's the logic inference ability Peter Webb (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/28/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/28/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Chairman of the David Hilbert Appreciation Society (01/28/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Chris Menzel (01/27/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/27/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/27/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies korax1214_at_mailandnews.co.uk (01/27/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Jeffrey Ketland (01/27/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Chris Menzel (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies Ogie Ogelthorpe (01/27/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/27/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Chris Menzel (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies george (01/27/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Barb Knox (01/27/05)
• Re: cantor argument blues Bill Smythe (01/27/05)
• Re: cantor argument blues ken quirici (01/27/05)
• Re: cantor argument blues Jeffrey Ketland (01/27/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Jeffrey Ketland (01/27/05)
• Re: cantor argument blues Will Twentyman (01/27/05)
• Re: cantor argument blues ken quirici (01/27/05)
• cantor argument blues ken quirici (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies Will Twentyman (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/27/05)
• Re: What's the logic inference ability Aatu Koskensilta (01/27/05)
• Re: WELL WHICH IS IT... ? Ralph Hartley (01/27/05)
• Re: What's the logic inference ability Peter Webb (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/27/05)
• Re: Does lim x->[value] imply a countable no. of (imagined) test values of 'x'? ken quirici (01/27/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• How far can you move the bar? The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Jeffrey Ketland (01/27/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? Will Twentyman (01/27/05)
• Re: An ordered pair with Sheffer's stroke? Stephan Lehmke (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. Pastor Frank (01/27/05)
• higher-order logic alex goldman (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo Will Twentyman (01/27/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N Will Twentyman (01/27/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Will Twentyman (01/27/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/27/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/27/05)
• Re: Does lim x->[value] imply a countable no. of (imagined) test values of 'x'? Robert Low (01/27/05)
• Re: Metaphysics of Potential Infinity Mitch Harris (01/27/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection Don (01/27/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection Don (01/27/05)
• Re: THÊ MÉLTDÖWN ÓF ._|ERC THE F*+xHÉ@D? Mr. 4X (01/27/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/27/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Daryl McCullough (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Daryl McCullough (01/27/05)
• Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL? Leonid Portnoy (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega r.e.s. (01/27/05)
• Re: another moron Re: John misses point Re: FUCKING RUDE CHAP Re: Idiocy of Muckenheim was Re: countability of reals examachine_at_gmail.com (01/27/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. The_Sage (01/27/05)
• Re: Does lim x->[value] imply a countable no. of (imagined) test values of 'x'? ken quirici (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Barb Knox (01/27/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. LEFTY (01/27/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Torkel Franzen (01/27/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Torkel Franzen (01/27/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/27/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Mike Oliver (01/27/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/27/05)
• What's the logic inference ability Andy (01/26/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Daryl McCullough (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Mike Oliver (01/26/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Jeffrey Ketland (01/26/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/26/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/26/05)
• Re: Does lim x->[value] imply a countable no. of (imagined) test values of 'x'? Bill Smythe (01/26/05)
• Re: Does lim x->[value] imply a countable no. of (imagined) test values of 'x'? Arthur Fischer (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Daryl McCullough (01/26/05)
• Re: Metaphysics of Potential Infinity examachine_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Mike Oliver (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! r.e.s. (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo Will Twentyman (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N Will Twentyman (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Jeffrey Ketland (01/26/05)
• Re: Does lim x->[value] imply a countable no. of (imagined) test values of 'x'? George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Torkel Franzen (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? Will Twentyman (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N ken quirici (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies Rushtown (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N briggs_at_encompasserve.org (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N ken quirici (01/26/05)
• Re: Cardinality is like psychology fishfry (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N briggs_at_encompasserve.org (01/26/05)
• Does lim x->[value] imply a countable no. of (imagined) test values of 'x'? ken quirici (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N ken quirici (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N ken quirici (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Ralph Hartley (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Daryl McCullough (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** Dave Seaman (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies Arthur Fischer (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/26/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality David C. Ullrich (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: Metaphysics of Potential Infinity Mitch Harris (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• Re: OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies googleposter226_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• OK say when, no chicken sh*t replies |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Torkel Franzen (01/26/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/26/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Torkel Franzen (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N george (01/26/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Torkel Franzen (01/26/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Torkel Franzen (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: WELL WHICH IS IT... ? The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > ( THAT ARE < 10 ) The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: Cardinality is like psychology valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: Cardinality is like psychology |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: Idiocy of Muckenheim was Re: countability of reals |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: Idiocy of Muckenheim was Re: countability of reals Piotr Sawuk (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: Cardinality is like psychology valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Jeffrey Ketland (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo Will Twentyman (01/26/05)
• Cardinality is like psychology |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED |-|erc (01/26/05)
• YOU IGNORAMUSES ACTUAL:LY BELIEVE THIS ? |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED Will Twentyman (01/26/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo Will Twentyman (01/26/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED Will Twentyman (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Mike Oliver (01/26/05)
• Re: Metaphysics of Potential Infinity poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > ( THAT ARE < 10 ) valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo valdez (01/26/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > bobbysim_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity H. Enderton (01/26/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity George Cox (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/26/05)
• THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > |-|erc (01/26/05)
• THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1.. > ( THAT ARE < 10 ) |-|erc (01/26/05)
• HOW MANY DIGITS ARE IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 1 .. > ( THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ) ? oo |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: True = [ proven | provable ] |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/26/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/26/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/25/05)
• Re: axiomatic vs. non-axiomatic (beginner's Q) Pei Wang (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: True = [ proven | provable ] John Titor (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic OsherD (01/25/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Mike Oliver (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Daryl McCullough (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Will Twentyman (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Daryl McCullough (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Will Twentyman (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: and who made god? island5_at_earthlink.net (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED Will Twentyman (01/25/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED Will Twentyman (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Mike Oliver (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Torkel Franzen (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Metaphysics of Potential Infinity examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Metaphysics of Potential Infinity examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Daryl McCullough (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Jesse F. Hughes (01/25/05)
• Re: Metaphysics of Potential Infinity examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Torkel Franzen (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Torkel Franzen (01/25/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Daryl McCullough (01/25/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection Albert (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** Patricia Shanahan (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Mike Oliver (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection RFHall (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Lee Rudolph (01/25/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity ken quirici (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Torkel Franzen (01/25/05)
• Re: Random reals are not computable! Mike Oliver (01/25/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/25/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection RFHall (01/25/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? Mike Oliver (01/25/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection RFHall (01/25/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu (01/25/05)
• Final Call for Tutorials/Workshops for KI 2005 Jan Murray (01/25/05)
• Re: WELL WHICH IS IT... ? Ralph Hartley (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Arthur Fischer (01/25/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. Christopher A. Lee (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Daryl McCullough (01/25/05)
• Re: Metaphysics of Potential Infinity examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Random reals are not computable! examachine_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** Will Twentyman (01/25/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. Pastor Frank (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/25/05)
• Re: THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 .. > Poly-Poly Man (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Torkel Franzen (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic David C. Ullrich (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED The Ghost In The Machine (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/25/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Torkel Franzen (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (01/25/05)
• THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N |-|erc (01/25/05)
• THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN < 1 2 3 4 5 .. > |-|erc (01/25/05)
• THERE ARE oo DIGITS IN < 0 . 1 2 1 2 .. > |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: article on schools of foundations of mathematics george (01/25/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** george (01/25/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality george (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega george (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (01/25/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/25/05)
• Re: and who made god? island5_at_earthlink.net (01/25/05)
• Re: axiomatic vs. non-axiomatic (beginner's Q) George Cox (01/25/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity George Cox (01/25/05)
• Re: axiomatic vs. non-axiomatic (beginner's Q) George Cox (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (01/25/05)
• Re: and who made god? Mani Deli (01/25/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. LEFTY (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** The Ghost In The Machine (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega The Ghost In The Machine (01/25/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED The Ghost In The Machine (01/25/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/25/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. LEFTY (01/25/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity Ross A. Finlayson (01/25/05)
• Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL? Pierre Asselin (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Torkel Franzen (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: computation and cardinality Mike Oliver (01/25/05)
• Re: E = wLF Derived By Modified Quantum Logic OsherD (01/25/05)
• Re: and who made god? island5_at_earthlink.net (01/25/05)
• Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL? Pierre Asselin (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** |-|erc (01/25/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Acme Diagnostics (01/25/05)
• Re: article on schools of foundations of mathematics George Cox (01/24/05)
• Re: article on schools of foundations of mathematics George Cox (01/24/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. Dubh Ghall (01/24/05)
• Re: and who made god? Albert (01/24/05)
• Re: and who made god? Albert (01/24/05)
• Re: OT: An interesting snippet about proof of God's Existence. Dubh Ghall (01/24/05)
• Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false? poopdeville_at_gmail.com (01/24/05)
• Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time. bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com (01/24/05)
• Re: Morality, Ethics, Law, and the Unmarked Intersection Don (01/24/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** LordBeotian (01/24/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Charlie-Boo (01/24/05)
• Re: and who made god? island5_at_earthlink.net (01/24/05)
• Re: On Well-Ordering(s) and Sets Dense in the Reals, Infinity George Cox (01/24/05)
• Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL? Torkel Franzen (01/24/05)
• Re: Why we cannot compute omega Will Twentyman (01/24/05)
• Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL? Leonid Portnoy (01/24/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Chris Menzel (01/24/05)
• Re: How far can you move the bar MONOSPACED Will Twentyman (01/24/05)
• Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********** Will Twentyman (01/24/05)
• Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL? Torkel Franzen (01/24/05)
• Re: A Manual of Practical Reason Mitch Harris (01/24/05)
• Re: and who made god? formerly known as 'cat arranger' (01/24/05)
• Re: Can we have Second Order Logic expressibility in FOL?