sci.logic
Re: Open question about propositional S5(?),
David C . Ullrich
logic on the web,
name
ring/field/algebra,
ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
Heyas.,
Starbles
Open formulas in the empty domain,
Michael De
Question on upwards LST,
Barb Knox
Worked Examples,
Robert Thornley
Routley's "noneism",
Paul Holbach
Axioms v. definitions.,
Jim Spriggs
PUNKT, ksRobak, Tomek Wilmowski i SEDNO FILOZOFII,
Tom
well-ordered sets and inductive sets,
ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
=,
Charlie-Boo
Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth",
Mike Carroll
Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
andrewspencers
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
Jim Spriggs
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
Keith Ramsay
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
G . Frege
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
G . Frege
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
G . Frege
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
G . Frege
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
G . Frege
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
G . Frege
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
G . Frege
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2,
G . Frege
Re: Learning Type Theory in Church,
andrewspencers
Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?,
andrewspencers
Yessenin-Volpin,
Rupert
Conditional elimination,
Michael De
question about PRA,
Rupert
- Re: question about PRA,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: question about PRA,
Rupert
- Re: question about PRA,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: question about PRA,
Rupert
- Re: question about PRA,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: question about PRA,
Rupert
- Re: question about PRA,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: question about PRA,
Rupert
- Re: question about PRA,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: question about PRA,
Keith Ramsay
- Re: question about PRA,
Rupert
- Re: question about PRA,
Keith Ramsay
Parsons and the Square of Opposition,
William of Ockham
First order Induction axioms,
LordBeotian
Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary],
george
The other Principle of Abstraction,
andrewspencers
UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21,
H. Enderton
Proof of Peirce's law,
mitch
Re: Proof of Peirce's law,
G . Frege
Re: Proof of Peirce's law,
Dan Christensen
Impredicative ordinal,
Bill Taylor
i-C&P, an International Conference -second call,
Colin . Schmidt
Tarski commentators' definitions of "model",
andrewspencers
Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Message not available
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
- Message not available
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A,
George Dance
Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic,
LordBeotian
An axoimatic proof.,
mitch
What are the Adics?,
ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
Logistics Problem: Lisa's Tables,
Andy
How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?,
andrewspencers
Please Explain,
dtfoster
0/0,
zaljohar
Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers,
andrewspencers
Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
david petry
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
david petry
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
david petry
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
david petry
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
Daryl McCullough
- Re: Skolem Again,
Herman Jurjus
- Re: Skolem Again,
Daryl McCullough
- Re: Skolem Again,
Herman Jurjus
- Re: Skolem Again,
david petry
- Re: Skolem Again,
Daryl McCullough
- Re: Skolem Again,
Daryl McCullough
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
abo
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
berry
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
Lee Rudolph
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: Skolem Again,
abo
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
abo
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
Rupert
- Re: Skolem Again,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Rupert
- Re: Skolem Again,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Message not available
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
abo
- Re: Skolem Again,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
abo
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
abo
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
abo
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
abo
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
Rupert
- Re: Skolem Again,
george
- Re: Skolem Again,
Rupert
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
- Re: Skolem Again,
William of Ockham
- Re: Skolem Again,
Chris Menzel
Re: Skolem Again,
george
Tarski's terminology for identity,
andrewspencers
!! i want to learn !!,
galathaea
Re: :: semantic realisation in constructivism ::,
Keith Ramsay
Some questions on logic,
Mark-T
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
david petry
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Daryl McCullough
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
David C . Ullrich
- Message not available
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
george
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Bill Taylor
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Bill Taylor
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Bill Taylor
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Bill Taylor
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Bill Taylor
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Bill Taylor
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Bill Taylor
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem,
Bill Taylor
Just checking (re Godel's second theorem),
Peter_Smith
A question about provability in FOL.,
Nam Nguyen
Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?,
andrewspencers
Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
timvaz_059
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
timvaz_059
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
george
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
- Message not available
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
- Message not available
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Message not availableRe: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Chris Menzel
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
george
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
George Dance
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
George Dance
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Chris Menzel
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Message not availableRe: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
David C . Ullrich
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
|-|erc
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
- Message not available
- Message not available
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Message not available
Message not available
Message not available
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
G . Frege
Message not available
Message not availableRe: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
Jim Spriggs
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
H. J. Sander Bruggink
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
George Dance
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Message not availableRe: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
george
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?,
andrewspencers
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox,
george
[FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web,
Boris 'pi' Piwinger
UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 7,
H. Enderton
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Chris Menzel
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
david petry
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
george
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
- Message not available
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Herman Jurjus
- Message not available
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Herman Jurjus
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Torkel Franzen
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
Herman Jurjus
- Message not available
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
Message not availableRe: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
William of Ockham
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox,
David C . Ullrich
