Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Dec 2005 03:53:18 -0800
Torkel Franzen wrote:
> "Charlie-Boo" <chvol@xxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > What do you disagree with in the above?
>
> You mistakenly take the argument to be about classical propositional
> logic.
So "~(A<->~A) is a propositional calculus wff" is wrong? (I never used
the word "classical".)
C-B
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- References:
- Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Dan Christensen
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Barb Knox
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: sradhakr
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Barb Knox
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: sradhakr
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: G . Frege
- 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: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Charlie-Boo
- Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Prev by Date: Re: Evaluation of article
- Next by Date: Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Previous by thread: Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Next by thread: Re: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
- Index(es):
Loading