# sci.logic

**Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory**,*Frederick Williams***Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory**,*Aatu Koskensilta*

**Connectivity of a graph in FO**,*un student***Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO**,*William Elliot***Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO**,*un student***Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO**,*un student***Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO**,*William Elliot***Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO**,*un student***Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO**,*William Elliot*

**Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO**,*David C . Ullrich*

**sequence sum**,*karthik***Re: sequence sum**,*David W . Cantrell*

**Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Rupert***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Peter Webb***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*david petry***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*R. Srinivasan***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*R. Srinivasan***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*david petry*

**Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Rupert*

**Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Rupert**Message not available***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Frederick Williams*

**Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Peter Niessen***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Ralf Bader*

*Message not available***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Rupert***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Peter Webb***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*Rupert*

*Message not available***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*MoeBlee*

**Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*William of Ockham***Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe**,*William of Ockham*

**REFUTATION OF CT-THESIS FROM CLASSICAL LOGIC**,*LauLuna***IN ENGLISCH:A table of Mechanics. Schema:**,*NILS BÖRJESSON***IN SWEDISCH:Mekanikens indelning. Schema:**,*NILS BÖRJESSON***Re: <=> same as <-> ?**,*Frederick Williams***Potential Things**,*George Dance***Re: Potential Things**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: Potential Things**,*abo***Re: Potential Things**,*George Dance***Re: Potential Things**,*abo***Re: Potential Things**,*George Dance***Re: Potential Things**,*MoeBlee***Thinking about the context**,*George Dance***Re: Potential Things**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Potential Things**,*George Dance***Re: Potential Things**,*MoeBlee*

**"Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Frederick Williams***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*abo***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Frederick Williams***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*abo***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Frederick Williams***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*george***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*MoeBlee***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing"**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)**,*MoeBlee***Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)**,*MoeBlee***Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)**,*George Dance***Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)**,*George Dance*

**Re: Potential Things**,*George Dance***Re: Potential Things**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: Potential Things**,*George Dance*

**Re: Potential Things**,*george***Re: Potential Things**,*george***Re: Potential Things**,*George Dance*

**Re: Potential Things**,*George Dance*

**Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement**,*Jan Burse*- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement**,*Charlie-Boo*

**What's wrong with this argument in ZF?**,*mmweiss***Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?**,*mmweiss***Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?**,*Rupert*

**Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [11]**,*Conbra***post's correspondence problem**,*yarden . katz***Re: post's correspondence problem**,*H. J. Sander Bruggink*

**When does p imply q?**,*herbzet***Re: When does p imply q?**,*Newberry***Re: When does p imply q?**,*herbzet***Re: When does p imply q?**,*Newberry*

**Re: When does p imply q?**,*herbzet***Re: When does p imply q?**,*herbzet*

**Re: When does p imply q?**,*Frederick Williams*

**Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [9]**,*Conbra***A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*William Elliot***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Nam Nguyen***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*William Elliot***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Nam Nguyen***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*William Elliot***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*William Elliot***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*William Elliot***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo*

**Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*user13***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Pastor Kutchie***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones*

**Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Jan Burse***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Jan Burse***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Jan Burse***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Jan Burse***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Jan Burse***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones*

**Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?**,*John Jones*

**A universal introduction rule**,*Litania***Re: A universal introduction rule**,*William Elliot***Re: A universal introduction rule**,*Litania***Re: A universal introduction rule**,*William Elliot***Re: A universal introduction rule**,*Litania*

**Re: A universal introduction rule**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: A universal introduction rule**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: A universal introduction rule**,*Litania***Re: A universal introduction rule**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: A universal introduction rule**,*tohentoon***Re: A universal introduction rule**,*Litania*

**Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8]**,*Conbra***Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8]**,*William Elliot***Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8]**,*makc . the . great*

**Alexander Zinovjev**,*makc . the . great***partial orders**,*Per Freem***Re: partial orders**,*William Elliot***Re: partial orders**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: partial orders**,*William Elliot***Re: partial orders**,*Per Freem***Re: partial orders**,*Arturo Magidin***Re: partial orders**,*Per Freem***Re: partial orders**,*Arturo Magidin***Re: partial orders**,*William Elliot***Re: partial orders**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: partial orders**,*Arturo Magidin***Re: partial orders**,*William Elliot*

**Re: partial orders**,*tohentoon*

**Intensional Boolean Logic**,*Newberry***Sentential logic +**,*Tigran***Re: Sentential logic +**,*Jack Campin - bogus address***Re: Sentential logic +**,*Owen***Re: Sentential logic +**,*Jack Campin - bogus address***Re: Sentential logic +**,*Owen*

**Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*ludolphine***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*William of Ockham***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Peter_Smith***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*John Jones***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Barb Knox***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*george***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Barb Knox***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Kevin Karn**Message not available**Message not available**Message not available**Message not available**Message not available**Message not available***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Barb Knox***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*george***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Owen***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Owen***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*george***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*george***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Chris Menzel***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*abo***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*george***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*abo***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*george***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Chris Menzel***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*george*

**Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach*

**Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*David***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Paul Holbach*

**Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin**,*George Dance*

**Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Conbra***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*William Elliot***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Jan Burse***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Conbra***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Jan Burse***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Jan Burse***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Jan Burse***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Conbra***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Jan Burse***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Jan Burse***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Jan Burse***Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question**,*Conbra*

**AN INCOMPATIBILITY OF STRONG AI**,*LauLuna***Re: AN INCOMPATIBILITY OF STRONG AI**,*LauLuna*

**decidable**,*bargiax***Re: decidable**,*MoeBlee***Re: decidable**,*bargiax***Re: decidable**,*MoeBlee***Re: decidable**,*bargiax***Re: decidable**,*MoeBlee***Re: decidable**,*bargiax***Re: decidable**,*MoeBlee***Re: decidable**,*bargiax***Re: decidable**,*MoeBlee*

**FO vs. FO(TC)**,*un student***Re: FO vs. FO(TC)**,*Achim Blumensath***Re: FO vs. FO(TC)**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO vs. FO(TC)**,*Jan Burse*

**"Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Jeffrey Ketland***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*MoeBlee***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*MoeBlee***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Frederick Williams***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Frederick Williams***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Frederick Williams*

**Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*MoeBlee***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Chris Menzel***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Question***Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?**,*Frederick Williams*

**4. Land mammal-whale transition**,*NILS BÖRJESSON***Mathematics greatest ontological blunder**,*John Jones***Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder**,*Pastor Kutchie***Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder**,*John Jones*

**Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder**,*Charlie-Boo*

**Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*david petry***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*abo***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Aatu Koskensilta*

**Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*george***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*george*

**Re: completeness of predicate calculus**,*Jack Campin - bogus address***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Jack Campin - bogus address***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*George Dance***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*MoeBlee*

- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: Torkel Franzén is dead**,*R. Srinivasan*

**Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [2]**,*Conbra***Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [1]**,*Conbra***Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [1]**,*William Elliot*

**Take A Break..Making $20,000.00 using E-Gold (100% legal)**,*PerakianJ***LCC'06 submissions deadline extended to June 15**,*royer***OMEGA of the thermal field, T=2.7 K is 2/3**,*NILS BÖRJESSON***H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers**,*recordmymind***Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers**,*recordmymind***Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers**,*David C . Ullrich**recordmymind**David C . Ullrich**recordmymind**David C . Ullrich**recordmymind**David C . Ullrich**recordmymind*

**Sixteenth new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Conbra***Universal Generalization**,*Newberry***Re: Universal Generalization**,*Owen***Re: Universal Generalization**,*Newberry***Re: Universal Generalization**,*MoeBlee*

**Re: Universal Generalization**,*MoeBlee***Re: Universal Generalization**,*MoeBlee*

**Re: Why?**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why?**,*Alan Smaill*

**about law of excluded middle**,*Per Freem***Re: about law of excluded middle**,*William Elliot***Re: about law of excluded middle**,*MoeBlee***Re: about law of excluded middle**,*Frederick Williams***Re: about law of excluded middle**,*MoeBlee*

**Atomic Formulas, Atomic Sentences, Atomic Theories, and Atomic Structures**,*Blake Manner***Advantages of mathematical 'finitism'**,*John Jones***Fifteenth new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Conbra***Derivation Problem**,*Logic Noob***Re: Derivation Problem**,*Conbra***Re: Derivation Problem**,*Jeffrey Ketland***Re: Derivation Problem**,*Logic Noob***Re: Derivation Problem**,*Jack Campin - bogus address***Re: Derivation Problem**,*Logic Noob*

**Fourteenth new law from the premises of syllogism is as follows**,*Conbra***Proposition**,*jonthn***A constructivist approach to Sets**,*John Jones***Re: Die Liste aller natürlichen Zahlen existiert NICHT**,*albstorz***Qualia and Numerals**,*Kevin Karn***Re: Qualia and Numerals**,*Stephen Harris***Re: Qualia and Numerals**,*Kevin Karn*

**Re: Qualia and Numerals**,*Stephen Harris*

**A constructivist review of Number**,*John Jones***Re: A constructivist review of Number**,*William Elliot***Re: A constructivist review of Number**,*John Jones*

**Philosophical question about empty set**,*Scott***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Patrick***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Scott***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Chris Menzel*

**Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Scott***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Chris Menzel***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Scott***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Chris Menzel***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Paul Holbach***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*David C . Ullrich**Message not available***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Scott*

**Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Scott***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Scott***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Scott***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Chris Menzel***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Chris Menzel***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse***Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*Jan Burse*

**Re: Philosophical question about empty set**,*george*

**Fun Things about Largest Numbers!**,*John Jones***Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!**,*John Jones***Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!**,*John Jones***Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!**,*Patricia Shanahan*

**Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!**,*Jan Burse*

**Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Conbra***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Frederick Williams***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Conbra***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Jan Burse***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Jan Burse***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Frederick Williams***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Frederick Williams***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Conbra***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Frederick Williams***Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Patricia Shanahan*

**adding default rules to a theory in default logic**,*Per Freem***A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning**,*Conbra***Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning**,*Jan Burse***Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning**,*Jan Burse*

**Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??**,*Blake Manner***Re: Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??**,*Bertie Reed***Re: Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??**,*Blake Manner*

**resolution refutation problem**,*Tommy Strĝmhaug***Re: resolution refutation problem**,*William Elliot***Re: resolution refutation problem**,*Tommy Strĝmhaug***Re: resolution refutation problem**,*William Elliot***Re: resolution refutation problem**,*David Kinny*

**Re: resolution refutation problem**,*David Kinny***Re: resolution refutation problem**,*Tommy Strĝmhaug***Re: resolution refutation problem**,*David Kinny*

**Tenth new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Conbra***The largest number**,*John Jones***Re: The largest number**,*Nathan Gilbert*

**revising general rules (nonmon logic)**,*Per Freem***Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE**,*LauLuna***What are the values of 2-valued logic?**,*Owen***Re: What are the values of 2-valued logic?**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Ninth new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Conbra***Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*John Jones***Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*LauLuna***Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*John Jones***Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*Charlie***Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*John Jones***Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*LauLuna***Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*John Jones***Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*LauLuna***Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment**,*John Jones*

**Re: omega consistency**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: omega consistency**,*Keith Ramsay*

**Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types**,*Blake Manner***Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types**,*Bertie Reed***Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types**,*Blake Manner***Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types**,*Bertie Reed***Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types**,*Blake Manner***Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types**,*Blake Manner*

**Re: The Drinkers' Paradox**,*george*- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: The Drinkers' Paradox**,*george*

**Re: Axioms of Boolean Algebra got from Concept Algebra**,*george***Assistance required**,*nijerian***Re: Assistance required**,*William Elliot***Re: Assistance required**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Our Heavenly Father on 9-14-05 at 11:17 A.M.**,*norttene***Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Newberry***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Newberry***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Aatu Koskensilta*

**Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Newberry*

**Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Nam Nguyen***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Nam Nguyen*

**Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*Keith Ramsay***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*george***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*John Jones***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*John Jones***Re: Is Goedel's formula true?**,*george*

**Validity of formulas with a certain prefix**,*mordov***Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix**,*William Elliot***Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix**,*Pietro*

**Finitely Many Complete Types**,*blakman211***Re: Finitely Many Complete Types**,*blakman211*

**Re: Vagueness Again**,*William Elliot***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Jan Burse*

- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*H. J. Sander Bruggink*

**Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*MoeBlee*

**Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*H. J. Sander Bruggink***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*H. J. Sander Bruggink***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*H. J. Sander Bruggink*

**Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo***Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem**,*Charlie-Boo*

**[FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web**,*Boris 'pi' Piwinger***Fifth new law from the premises of syllogism**,*Conbra***Re: Fifth new law from the premises of syllogism**,*William Elliot*

**Re: Vague or Ambiguous?**,*John Jones***Re: Vague or Ambiguous?**,*William Elliot*- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: Vague or Ambiguous?**,*H. J. Sander Bruggink*

**Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Newberry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*georgie***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*george***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*georgie***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*george***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*georgie***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*george***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*georgie***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*david petry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Newberry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee*

- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Newberry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Jack Campin - bogus address***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why?**,*Alan Smaill***Re: Why?**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Jack Campin - bogus address***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why?**,*Alan Smaill***Re: Why?**,*MoeBlee*

**Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*William of Ockham***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Pietro***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Newberry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Newberry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Newberry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Patricia Shanahan***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Newberry***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Pietro***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Pietro***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Pietro***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Daryl McCullough***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Ross A. Finlayson***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee*

**Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*george***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Aatu Koskensilta***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Chris Menzel***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*george***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*apoorv***Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*MoeBlee*

**Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]**,*Aatu Koskensilta*

**Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*blakman211***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*Achim Blumensath***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*Bertie Reed***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*Achim Blumensath***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*blakman211***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*Bertie Reed***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*Achim Blumensath*

**Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*blakman211***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory**,*Blake Manner*

**Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich*- <Possible follow-ups>
**Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: FO logic without equality**,*Li Yi***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Alan Smaill***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Keith Ramsay***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Keith Ramsay***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Alan Smaill***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Keith Ramsay***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Alan Smaill***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Alan Smaill***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich*

**Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich***Re: FO logic without equality**,*Jan Burse***Re: FO logic without equality**,*David C . Ullrich*