sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• ILLC Research Reports and Technical Notes 2005
  • From: Marco Vervoort,P.315,+31 20 525 6519,,
• Adequate sets of n-ary connectives
  • From: Michael De
• not simple enough for a village idiot
  • From: mitch
• Re: grundlagen
  • From: mitch
• Re: using encoder as MUX
  • From: mkost
• Re: using encoder as MUX
  • From: mkost
• Re: using encoder as MUX
  • From: mkost
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Martin Gardner's New Prediction Paradox
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Martin Gardner's New Prediction Paradox
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: george
• Re: grundlagen
  • From: george
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Tom
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• decidability results for relational logic
  • From: Adnan Aziz
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Barb Knox
• Metamathematically True or False?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Predicativism and natural numbers
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Predicativism and natural numbers
  • From: george
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: decidability and completeness
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• logic professionals opinion - Geometry in the Bible Text
  • From: Boris
• Re: decidability and completeness
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: grundlagen
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: george
• Re: grundlagen
  • From: george
• Re: decidability and completeness
  • From: Michael De
• Re: decidability and completeness
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: decidability and completeness
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: decidability and completeness
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: decidability and completeness
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• using encoder as MUX
  • From: irenalt
• decidability and completeness
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: What does 1+1=2 really mean?
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: george
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• grundlagen
  • From: mitch
• Re: What does 1+1=2 really mean?
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• يا جماعة فى منـح تعليميـة مجانية فى مجال برمجة الكمبيوتر
  • From: Dr_mohamed_hassan_102
• يا جماعة فى منـح تعليميـة مجانية فى مجال برمجة الكمبيوتر
  • From: Dr_mohamed_hassan_102
• Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• Inverted iota in LaTeX
  • From: Michael De
• Re: What does 1+1=2 really mean?
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: What does 1+1=2 really mean?
  • From: Fish Huang
• Re: What does 1+1=2 really mean?
  • From: smnewberger
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• What does 1+1=2 really mean?
  • From: stu
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Propositional Variables "Yes" and "No"
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: george
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: george
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: george
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: poopdeville
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: george
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Kreisel and 1-consistency
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Martin Gardner's New Prediction Paradox
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Kreisel and 1-consistency
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Kreisel and 1-consistency
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Kreisel and 1-consistency
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Kreisel and 1-consistency
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Kreisel and 1-consistency
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: john
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Natural Negations
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The formal and informal proofs
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The formal and informal proofs
  • From: T.B.
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: order of magnitute(big Oh)
  • From: oercim
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The formal and informal proofs
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: The formal and informal proofs
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: georgie
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Inductive and deductive practices
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Inductive and deductive practices
  • From: Tron
• Re: Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: Tron
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: Anders Goeransson
• Name of logical fallacy - distorting evidence to fit theory?
  • From: john
• Which one is bigger?
  • From: oercim
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Inductive and deductive practices
  • From: Lupus
• Re: The formal and informal proofs
  • From: T.B.
• Re: paradoxes
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The formal and informal proofs
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• The formal and informal proofs
  • From: T.B.
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: learninglogic
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: learninglogic
• Natural Negations
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: ZFC means?
  • From: G . Frege
• ZFC means?
  • From: learninglogic
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: paradoxes
  • From: david petry
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Martin Gardner's New Prediction Paradox
  • From: george
• Re: paradoxes
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Martin Gardner's New Prediction Paradox
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• How long does the customer waits ?
  • From: juanra
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: The MetaMathematical Theorem that Almost Was
  • From: george
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: paradoxes
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• paradoxes
  • From: anbra1
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Nathan Gilbert
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: is such that equal to <=== ?
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: order of magnitute(big Oh)
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Babel Science
  • From: Tron
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: order of magnitute(big Oh)
  • From: oercim
• Re: order of magnitute(big Oh)
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Babel Science
  • From: William Elliot
• Babel Science
  • From: oldwetdog
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• order of magnitute(big Oh)
  • From: oercim
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: The MetaMathematical Theorem that Almost Was
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Informal theories versus formal theories.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: is such that equal to <=== ?
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Rupert
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: sradhakr
• About Consistency in 1st Order Theories.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Natural deduction?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Anders Goeransson
• Call for Papers - The Journal of American Science
  • From: marslandpress
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Tron
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Tron
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: is such that equal to <=== ?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Rupert
• consistency strength
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Martin Gardner's New Prediction Paradox
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Idempotence and reflexivity
  • From: george
• Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: george
• Re: Idempotence and reflexivity
  • From: Tron
• Re: Idempotence and reflexivity
  • From: george
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Idempotence and reflexivity
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Martin Gardner's New Prediction Paradox
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Idempotence and reflexivity
  • From: george
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: What do we call ...?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: is such that equal to <=== ?
  • From: adamarthurfilter@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: What do we call ...?
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Idempotence and reflexivity
  • From: Tron
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: is such that equal to <=== ?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: What do we call ...?
  • From: Tron
• Re: question about upward lowenheim-skolem
  • From: Achim Blumensath
• Re: What do we call ...?
  • From: poopdeville
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Tron
• What do we call ...?
  • From: Tron
• Re: Evaluation of article
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Evaluation of article
  • From: Tron
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Just say no, naturally.
  • From: george
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: george
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: is such that equal to <=== ?
  • From: kobu . selva
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: is such that equal to <=== ?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Question about Cardinality and Proper Classes
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Adam and Eve Rode Dinosaurs to Church
  • From: mmmkaycomputer
• Re: Question about Cardinality and Proper Classes
  • From: Chris Menzel
• is such that equal to <=== ?
  • From: kobu . selva
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: a logic, a model, an isomorphism, an intention
  • From: Gerry Myerson
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• square of sums
  • From: oercim
• Question about Cardinality and Proper Classes
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: george
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Just say no, naturally.
  • From: William Elliot
• question about upward lowenheim-skolem
  • From: Per Freem
• question about upward lowenheim-skolem
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: abo
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: abo
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: abo
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: A simple but peculiar proof!
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: abo
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: abo
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: H. Enderton
• Re: A question on FOL inference
  • From: MoeBlee
• A question on FOL inference
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: abo
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Per Freem
• A simple but peculiar proof!
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: abo
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: abo
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: abo
• GCH in the absence of Power Set Axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: abo
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: very quick question on embeddings
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Stephen Harris
• sentences with infinite models and equivalence relations
  • From: Per Freem
• sentences with infinite models and equivalence classes
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: very quick question on embeddings
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: The Epimenides Paradox
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: The Epimenides Paradox
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: george
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: george
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: very quick question on embeddings
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• very quick question on embeddings
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Question on the power set axiom
  • From: William Elliot
• Question on the power set axiom
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Per Freem
• The Epimenides Paradox
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: realizing and omitting types
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
  • From: G . Frege
• realizing and omitting types
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Derek Smith
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: george
• Re: a logic, a model, an isomorphism, an intention
  • From: george
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: Peter B
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: smnewberger
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Scott
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Scott
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Learning Logic and Set Theory
  • From: Derek Smith
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: Lee Rudolph
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: What is the 1st order formal system known as PA?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• p implies (not p implies everything)
  • From: Peter Buus
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Scott
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: abo
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Anders Goeransson
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Turing and Godel
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  • From: Anders Goeransson
• Re: What is the 1st order formal system known as PA?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: What is the 1st order formal system known as PA?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Turing and Godel
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Are Logicians Naturally Logical?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• [FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web
  • From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger
• Re: Turing and Godel
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Penrose vs the Robot
  • From: Rupert
• REMINDER:BCS-FACS Evening Seminar by Richard Bornat on Separation Logic, 8 December 2005, 6pm, London
  • From: FACS FACTS Editor
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Patrick
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Torkel Franzen
• Re: Help writing a paper on Godel's Incompleteness Thorem
  • From: Scott
• Re: Turing and Godel
  • From: Torkel Franzen

We are proud to have Web Hosting and Rack Housing from 9 Net Avenue Deutschland.
(18)