sci.logic
- Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory,
Frederick Williams
- Connectivity of a graph in FO,
un student
- sequence sum,
karthik
- Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Rupert
- 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
- "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,
george
- Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement,
Charlie-Boo
- What's wrong with this argument in ZF?,
mmweiss
- Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [11],
Conbra
- post's correspondence problem,
yarden . katz
- When does p imply q?,
herbzet
- 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?,
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
- A universal introduction rule,
Litania
- Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8],
Conbra
- Alexander Zinovjev,
makc . the . great
- partial orders,
Per Freem
- Intensional Boolean Logic,
Newberry
- Sentential logic +,
Tigran
- Frege: Reason's nearest kin,
ludolphine
- 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,
David
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
AN INCOMPATIBILITY OF STRONG AI,
LauLuna
decidable,
bargiax
FO vs. FO(TC),
un student
"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
4. Land mammal-whale transition,
NILS BÖRJESSON
Mathematics greatest ontological blunder,
John Jones
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead,
Aatu Koskensilta
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
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
Sixteenth new law from the premises of syllogism,
Conbra
Universal Generalization,
Newberry
Re: Why?,
MoeBlee
about law of excluded middle,
Per Freem
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
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
A constructivist review of Number,
John Jones
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
Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism,
Conbra
adding default rules to a theory in default logic,
Per Freem
A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning,
Conbra
Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??,
Blake Manner
resolution refutation problem,
Tommy Strĝmhaug
Tenth new law from the premises of syllogism,
Conbra
The largest number,
John Jones
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
Ninth new law from the premises of syllogism,
Conbra
Mathematical objects and Discernment,
John Jones
Re: omega consistency,
Aatu Koskensilta
Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types,
Blake Manner
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox,
george
Re: Axioms of Boolean Algebra got from Concept Algebra,
george
Assistance required,
nijerian
Our Heavenly Father on 9-14-05 at 11:17 A.M.,
norttene
Is Goedel's formula true?,
Newberry
Validity of formulas with a certain prefix,
mordov
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,
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,
Charlie-Boo
[FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web,
Boris 'pi' Piwinger
Fifth new law from the premises of syllogism,
Conbra
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?,
John Jones
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: FO logic without equality,
David C . Ullrich
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: FO logic without equality,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: FO logic without equality,
Li Yi
- 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
