sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: nonstandard models of PA
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• nonstandard models of PA
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: Owen
• Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions
  • From: William Elliot
• Bertrand Russell and contradictions
  • From: yawnmoth
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: =
  • From: Owen
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Poem on halting problem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: logic on the web
  • From: John Velman
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: Mike Carroll
• Re: Heyas.
  • From: George Dance
• UCLA Logic Colloquium, Nov 4
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: =
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: logic on the web
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: David C. Ullrich
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: David C. Ullrich
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Robinson Arithmetic
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: Mike Carroll
• Re: Open question about propositional S5(?)
  • From: Michael De
• Re: logic on the web
  • From: name
• Re: logic on the web
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: logic on the web
  • From: Chris Menzel
• logic on the web
  • From: name
• Re: ring/field/algebra
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: ring/field/algebra
  • From: george
• Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth"
  • From: Sebastian K.
• Re: =
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: ring/field/algebra
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• ring/field/algebra
  • From: ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Heyas.
  • From: Jim Heckman
• Re: Yessenin-Volpin
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Heyas.
  • From: Starbles
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Heyas.
  • From: Owen
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Heyas.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Heyas.
  • From: Robert Low
• Re: Heyas.
  • From: Starbles
• Re: Heyas.
  • From: Robert Low
• Heyas.
  • From: Starbles
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: |-|erc
• Re: Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Michael De
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: Tom Breton
• Open formulas in the empty domain
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Question on upwards LST
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on upwards LST
  • From: Robert Low
• Question on upwards LST
  • From: Barb Knox
• Worked Examples
  • From: Robert Thornley
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: |-|erc
• Re: Routley's "noneism"
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Routley's "noneism"
  • From: examachine
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: george
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: george
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: george
• Re: Routley's "noneism"
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Routley's "noneism"
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: Rupert
• Axioms v. definitions.
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets
  • From: poopdeville
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Yessenin-Volpin
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Yessenin-Volpin
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• PUNKT, ksRobak, Tomek Wilmowski i SEDNO FILOZOFII
  • From: Tom
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: =
  • From: Owen
• Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets
  • From: poopdeville
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: =
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: =
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• well-ordered sets and inductive sets
  • From: ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Robert Low
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Owen
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: =
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth"
  • From: abo
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz
• Re: =
  • From: Owen
• Re: =
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: =
  • From: Owen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: =
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth"
  • From: abo
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Rupert
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth"
  • From: Mike Carroll
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: =
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: George Dance
• =
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth"
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth"
  • From: Mike Carroll
• Re: Yessenin-Volpin
  • From: Lee Rudolph
• Re: Impredicative ordinal
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Yessenin-Volpin
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Yessenin-Volpin
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: Owen
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Acme Diagnostics
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: 1 + 1 = 2
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Learning Type Theory in Church
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Yessenin-Volpin
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Conditional elimination
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Conditional elimination
  • From: G . Frege
• Yessenin-Volpin
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Conditional elimination
  • From: Roberto Vescarelli
• Conditional elimination
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Rupert
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Rupert
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Rupert
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Rupert
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Rupert
• Re: question about PRA
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Impredicative ordinal
  • From: Bill Taylor
• First order Induction axioms
  • From: Bill Taylor
• First order Induction axioms
  • From: Bill Taylor
• question about PRA
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: abo
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Parsons and the Square of Opposition
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: abo
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Parsons and the Square of Opposition
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: abo
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Parsons and the Square of Opposition
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: First order Induction axioms
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• First order Induction axioms
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary]
  • From: |-|erc
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary]
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary]
  • From: george
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• The other Principle of Abstraction
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: mitch
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: G . Frege
• UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: mitch
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: abo
• Re: Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Proof of Peirce's law
  • From: mitch
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Impredicative ordinal
  • From: Rupert
• Impredicative ordinal
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: george
• i-C&P, an International Conference -second call
  • From: Colin . Schmidt
• Tarski commentators' definitions of "model"
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic
  • From: |-|erc
• Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: abo
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: George Dance
• Testing Validity in FOPL-A
  • From: George Dance
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: George Dance
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: mitch
• Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: abo
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: An axoimatic proof.
  • From: Roberto Vescarelli
• An axoimatic proof.
  • From: mitch
• What are the Adics?
  • From: ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Lee Rudolph
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: abo
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: berry
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: abo
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Please Explain
  • From: John Velman
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Please Explain
  • From: George Dance
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: George Dance
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: david petry
• Logistics Problem: Lisa's Tables
  • From: Andy
• How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Please Explain
  • From: William Elliot
• Please Explain
  • From: dtfoster
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: david petry
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: david petry
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• 0/0
  • From: zaljohar
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: A question about provability in FOL.
  • From: galathaea
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: david petry
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: david petry
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: george
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: george
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: david petry
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: Rupert
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: A question about provability in FOL.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question about provability in FOL.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Robert E. Beaudoin
• Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• Re: Skolem Again
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Skolem Again
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: William of Ockham
• Tarski's terminology for identity
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: !! i want to learn !!
  • From: Tom
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: !! i want to learn !!
  • From: galathaea
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: A question about provability in FOL.
  • From: galathaea
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: !! i want to learn !!
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Bill Taylor
• !! i want to learn !!
  • From: galathaea
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: david petry
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: david petry
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: :: semantic realisation in constructivism ::
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: |-|erc
• Re: Some questions on logic
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Some questions on logic
  • From: Mark-T
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Just checking (re Godel's second theorem)
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: A question about provability in FOL.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem
  • From: david petry
• Re: A question about provability in FOL.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: george
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Just checking (re Godel's second theorem)
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Just checking (re Godel's second theorem)
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• A question about provability in FOL.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: george
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: george
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: timvaz_059
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: Jim Spriggs
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: timvaz_059
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: William of Ockham
• Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?
  • From: andrewspencers
• Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox
  • From: george
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: george
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: george
• [FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web
  • From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: david petry
• UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 7
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox
  • From: Chris Menzel

We are proud to have Web Hosting and Rack Housing from 9 Net Avenue Deutschland.
(14)