sci.logic

• Date Index

• What does "dictum de omni et nullo" mean?, Jim Spriggs
  • Re: What does "dictum de omni et nullo" mean?, Alan Smaill
    • Re: What does "dictum de omni et nullo" mean?, Jim Spriggs
• ITS SOO BIG YOU CANT PUT IT IN ORDER, HERC777
• UCLA Logic Colloquium, May 6, H. Enderton
• Nomenology: The study of names & personality, Whoacart333
  • Re: Nomenology: The study of names & personality, Peter Webb
• Nature and Natural Numbers, William Elliot
  • Re: Nature and Natural Numbers, HERC777
• Re: Why do we have the natural numbers?, Patrick
• kinds of definitions, messagebag
  • Re: kinds of definitions, Jim Spriggs
• proof by contradiction in Euclid's elements, ken quirici
  • Re: proof by contradiction in Euclid's elements, William Elliot
    • Re: proof by contradiction in Euclid's elements, Ken Pledger
• Cohen model for a > countable model of set theory, Mahesh Naik
  • Re: Cohen model for a > countable model of set theory, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: Cohen model for a > countable model of set theory, shunya
      • Re: Cohen model for a > countable model of set theory, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: Cohen model for a > countable model of set theory, shunya
• TRUE / FALSE / EITHER "I underestimate you", HERC777
  • Re: TRUE / FALSE / EITHER "I underestimate you", HERC777
    • Re: TRUE / FALSE / EITHER "I underestimate you", Charlie-Boo
      • Re: TRUE / FALSE / EITHER "I underestimate you", HERC777
• Re: Recursivity vs. Provability, H. Enderton
  • Re: Recursivity vs. Provability, george
    • Re: Recursivity vs. Provability, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Recursivity vs. Provability, Babylonian
      • Re: Recursivity vs. Provability, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Recursivity vs. Provability, george
      • Re: Recursivity vs. Provability, Charlie-Boo
• Riddle of the day, William Elliot
  • Re: Riddle of the day, Jim Spriggs
• Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
  • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
    • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Nam Nguyen
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Peter Webb
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, William Elliot
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Peter Webb
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
  • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
    • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, G . Frege
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, G . Frege
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Tom Breton
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Chris Menzel
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, William Elliot
  • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Owen
    • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, William Elliot
  • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
    • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Chris Menzel
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
  • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Dan Christensen
    • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Dan Christensen
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
      • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
  • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Tom Breton
  • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Paul Holbach
    • Re: Relation between sets and their elements, Nam Nguyen
• Copyright your own material, ELCO
• A new Arithmetic Principle?, Nam Nguyen
  • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, Nam Nguyen
    • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, Nam Nguyen
    • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, george
      • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, Nam Nguyen
  • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, Jim Spriggs
    • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, Nam Nguyen
      • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, Jim Spriggs
      • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, Nam Nguyen
      • Re: A new Arithmetic Principle?, Nam Nguyen
• What does this symbol mean?, alan
  • Re: What does this symbol mean?, HERC777
• representation and replacement, vsgdp
  • Re: representation and replacement, Barb Knox
    • Re: representation and replacement, george
• Re: What Logic Really Is, Robert Kolker
  • Re: What Logic Really Is, Chris Menzel
    • Re: What Logic Really Is, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Chris Menzel
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Chris Menzel
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Peter_Smith
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Peter_Smith
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Peter_Smith
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Peter_Smith
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: What Logic Really Is, Peter_Smith
• Breaking news, Tom
• approaching a proof, ken quirici
  • Re: approaching a proof, HERC777
    • Re: approaching a proof, HERC777
    • Re: approaching a proof, ken quirici
  • Re: approaching a proof, Bill Smythe
    • Re: approaching a proof, Nam Nguyen
      • Re: approaching a proof, Nam Nguyen
      • Re: approaching a proof, ken quirici
      • Re: approaching a proof, Nam Nguyen
  • Re: approaching a proof, William Elliot
    • Re: approaching a proof, Peter Webb
      • Re: approaching a proof, Barb Knox
      • Re: approaching a proof, Chris Menzel
      • Re: approaching a proof, Nam Nguyen
      • Re: approaching a proof, William Elliot
      • Re: approaching a proof, Jim Spriggs
  • Re: approaching a proof, Peter Webb
  • Re: approaching a proof, Mitch Harris
    • Re: approaching a proof, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: approaching a proof, Mitch Harris
  • Re: approaching a proof, Robert Low
  • Re: approaching a proof, dave
    • Re: approaching a proof, david petry
• Direct proof of the recursiveness of Ackermann?, Snis Pilbor
  • Re: Direct proof of the recursiveness of Ackermann?, Peter_Smith
  • Re: Direct proof of the recursiveness of Ackermann?, H. Enderton
• Multidimensional and multimodal (modal) logics, Yarden Katz
• Set vs. Sequence, P.T.
  • Re: Set vs. Sequence, HERC777
  • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Barb Knox
    • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Robert Low
    • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Peter Webb
      • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Barb Knox
      • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Robert Low
      • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Barb Knox
      • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Robert Low
      • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Barb Knox
      • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Robert Low
      • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Barb Knox
      • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Robert Low
  • Re: Set vs. Sequence, Douglas Eagleson
• Re: say I flip a coin 100 times..., george
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: say I flip a coin 100 times..., george
    • Re: say I flip a coin 100 times..., HERC777
• Re: Constructivists' stance on cardinality, H. Enderton
• Re: Courage?, Eckard Blumschein
  • Re: Courage?, Chris Menzel
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Courage?, Chris Menzel
  • Re: Courage?, Bill Smythe
    • Re: Courage?, Chris Menzel
  • Re: Courage?, Will Twentyman
    • Re: Courage?, Chris Menzel
    • Re: Courage?, Dennis Ritchie
      • Re: Courage?, Keith Ramsay
      • Re: Courage?, Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: What is wrong with this argument?, Jan Burse
• about the examples of modal logic, miao
  • Re: about the examples of modal logic, Barb Knox
    • Re: about the examples of modal logic, Chris Menzel
    • Re: about the examples of modal logic, miao
• universal language, HERC777
  • Re: universal language, William Elliot
    • Re: universal language, HERC777
      • Re: universal language, William Elliot
      • Re: universal language, HERC777
      • Re: universal language, William Elliot
      • Re: universal language, HERC777
• request:logic:please help me, KAroline
  • Re: request:logic:please help me, Pavel314
  • Re: request:logic:please help me, KAroline
• Translation For Non-Quantitative People of My Proof of Born's ww* = P, OsherD
• Probability for Modal Semantics, Andrew J Bacon
  • Re: Probability for Modal Semantics, David C . Ullrich
• There are only a couple trillion people who can comprehend everything in memory and for thoughts on this web site NASA CAN and form a though of what Quantium A.I is and where it is at and if it know me and can it find you or does it care with qunatium physics..The people on mars have it down pefect. Can you right that simple program!!!!, xexe
• Probable Influence (PI) Proof of Born's Theorem ww* = P, OsherD
  • Re: Probable Influence (PI) Proof of Born's Theorem ww* = P, OsherD
    • Re: Probable Influence (PI) Proof of Born's Theorem ww* = P, OsherD
• Final CFP: 7th Intl Workshop on Logic & Computational Complexity, Jim Royer
• super quote, Birchy
• Uniform models, Aanandaha
• basic binary functions, xcvb_789
  • Re: basic binary functions, Peter_Smith
    • Re: basic binary functions, Peter_Smith
  • Re: basic binary functions, Gregory Toomey
    • Re: basic binary functions, Owen
    • Re: basic binary functions, HERC777
  • Re: basic binary functions, Owen
    • Re: basic binary functions, xcvb_789
      • Re: basic binary functions, Peter_Smith
      • Re: basic binary functions, Owen
• arithmetic in ZF, H. Enderton
  • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Torkel Franzen
  • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
    • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Message not available
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Ross A. Finlayson
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Barb Knox
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Ross A. Finlayson
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Chris Menzel
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Ross A. Finlayson
      • Message not available
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Message not available
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Babylonian
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Keith Ramsay
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Babylonian
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
  • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
    • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Barb Knox
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Daryl McCullough
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Daryl McCullough
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
    • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Torkel Franzen
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Daryl McCullough
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Torkel Franzen
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, Daryl McCullough
      • Re: arithmetic in ZF, george
• Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Snis Pilbor
  • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Torkel Franzen
    • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Stephen Harris
      • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Torkel Franzen
  • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, H. Enderton
    • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Torkel Franzen
  • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Bhupinder Singh Anand
    • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Babylonian
      • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Babylonian
      • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Babylonian
      • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Bhupinder Singh Anand
      • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Babylonian
      • Re: Church Thesis for hyperrecursives?, Bhupinder Singh Anand
• Re: Proof christians are full of crap, Daryl McCullough
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Proof christians are full of crap, Robert Low
    • Truth is not r.e. [was: Re: Proof christians are full of crap], Barb Knox
      • Re: Truth is not r.e. [was: Re: Proof christians are full of crap], Robert Low
      • Re: Truth is not r.e. [was: Re: Proof christians are full of crap], Barb Knox
      • Re: Truth is not r.e. [was: Re: Proof christians are full of crap], Robert Low
• Question about the Kleene Normal Form Thrm., Snis Pilbor
  • Re: Question about the Kleene Normal Form Thrm., Torkel Franzen
  • Re: Question about the Kleene Normal Form Thrm., Torkel Franzen
• Is this a fallacy?, shepherdmoon
  • re: Is this a fallacy?, Acme Diagnostics
    • Re: Is this a fallacy?, shepherdmoon
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, William Elliot
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, Acme Diagnostics
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, shepherdmoon
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, Acme Diagnostics
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, shepherdmoon
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, Acme Diagnostics
  • Re: Is this a fallacy?, William Elliot
    • Re: Is this a fallacy?, Acme Diagnostics
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, William Elliot
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, Acme Diagnostics
      • Re: Is this a fallacy?, William Elliot
  • Re: Is this a fallacy?, Tron
    • Re: Is this a fallacy?, Acme Diagnostics
• And can machines even think?, Tom
  • Re: And can machines even think?, G . Frege
    • Re: And can machines even think?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: And can machines even think?, H. J. Sander Bruggink
      • Re: And can machines even think?, Tom
      • Re: And can machines even think?, Stephen Harris
      • Re: And can machines even think?, Tom
    • Re: And can machines even think?, Tom
  • Re: And can machines even think?, Jim Spriggs
    • Re: And can machines even think?, Stephen Harris
      • Re: And can machines even think?, Jim Spriggs
      • Re: And can machines even think?, Stephen Harris
      • Re: And can machines even think?, Tom
      • Re: And can machines even think?, Stephen Harris
      • Re: And can machines even think?, Tom
  • Re: And can machines even think?, The Ghost In The Machine
    • Re: And can machines even think?, HERC777
• ramified language, Allan Adler
• Forcing for admissible sets, Allan Adler
• UCLA Logic Colloquium, April 8, H. Enderton
• Re: On-line Godel book updated, Bhupinder Singh Anand
  • Re: On-line Godel book updated, george
• Euclid's actual proof - have at it!, ken quirici
  • Re: Euclid's actual proof - have at it!, Arturo Magidin
    • Re: Euclid's actual proof - have at it!, ken quirici
    • Re: Euclid's actual proof - have at it!, ken quirici
  • Re: Euclid's actual proof - have at it!, ken quirici
• [FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web, Boris 'pi' Piwinger
• Re: Physical models of set theory, mitch
  • topological models of set theory, george
    • Re: topological models of set theory, mitch
      • Re: topological models of set theory, george
    • Re: topological models of set theory, mitch
      • Re: topological models of set theory, george
      • Re: topological models of set theory, george
  • Re: Physical models of set theory, george
• theorem vs. metatheorem, lkjh_098
  • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, Owen
    • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, William Elliot
  • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, Jim Spriggs
  • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, William Elliot
  • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, Tom Breton
    • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, lkjh_098
      • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, Chris Menzel
      • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, Jim Spriggs
  • Re: theorem vs. metatheorem, Stephan Lehmke
• Re: The Infinite Calculus, Jim Spriggs
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The Infinite Calculus, Chris Menzel
    • Re: The Infinite Calculus, Will Twentyman
      • Re: The Infinite Calculus, Mike Oliver
      • Re: The Infinite Calculus, Chris Menzel
• Re: Do we really nedd to have models for a theory?, george
  • Re: Do we really nedd to have models for a theory?, Ross A. Finlayson
    • Re: Do we really nedd to have models for a theory?, mitch
      • Re: Do we really need to have models for a theory?, Ross A. Finlayson
      • Re: Do we really need to have models for a theory?, mitch
      • Re: Do we really need to have models for a theory?, Ross A. Finlayson
  • Re: Do we really nedd to have models for a theory?, mitch
• Re: Monadic 2nd Order Logic, H. Enderton
  • Re: Monadic 2nd Order Logic, Owen

• Windows
• Science
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint