sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: un student
• Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: un student
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: george
• Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: un student
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: William Elliot
• Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: un student
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Ralf Bader
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: david petry
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Peter Niessen
• Re: sequence sum
  • From: David W . Cantrell
• sequence sum
  • From: karthik
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: abo
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: abo
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: david petry
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Peter Webb
• Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• REFUTATION OF CT-THESIS FROM CLASSICAL LOGIC
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Thinking about the context
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: george
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: George Dance
• IN ENGLISCH:A table of Mechanics. Schema:
  • From: NILS BÖRJESSON
• IN SWEDISCH:Mekanikens indelning. Schema:
  • From: NILS BÖRJESSON
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: george
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: george
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: george
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: george
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: abo
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: abo
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: "Torkel Bashing"
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: abo
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things)
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: abo
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: <=> same as <-> ?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: george
• Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?
  • From: mmweiss
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: When does p imply q?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: When does p imply q?
  • From: herbzet
• What's wrong with this argument in ZF?
  • From: mmweiss
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [11]
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: tohentoon
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Pastor Kutchie
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: abo
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: george
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: When does p imply q?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: post's correspondence problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: When does p imply q?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: When does p imply q?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: When does p imply q?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• post's correspondence problem
  • From: yarden . katz
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Owen
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Owen
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder
  • From: Pastor Kutchie
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: user13
• When does p imply q?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: george
• Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [9]
  • From: Conbra
• A definition of 'two' (2) please?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Sentential logic +
  • From: Owen
• Re: Sentential logic +
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Sentential logic +
  • From: Owen
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: AN INCOMPATIBILITY OF STRONG AI
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8]
  • From: makc . the . great
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: partial orders
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: partial orders
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: partial orders
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: partial orders
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: partial orders
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8]
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8]
  • From: Conbra
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: george
• Re: partial orders
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: partial orders
  • From: tohentoon
• Re: partial orders
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: partial orders
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: george
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: george
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: partial orders
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: partial orders
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO vs. FO(TC)
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO vs. FO(TC)
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO vs. FO(TC)
  • From: Achim Blumensath
• Alexander Zinovjev
  • From: makc . the . great
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: abo
• Re: partial orders
  • From: William Elliot
• partial orders
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Why?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why?
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: decidable
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: decidable
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Intensional Boolean Logic
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Sentential logic +
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Barb Knox
• Sentential logic +
  • From: Tigran
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Conbra
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: decidable
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Conbra
• Re: decidable
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: David
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Jan Burse
• Frege: Reason's nearest kin
  • From: ludolphine
• Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: William Elliot
• Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question
  • From: Conbra
• Re: decidable
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: decidable
  • From: bargiax
• Re: decidable
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: decidable
  • From: bargiax
• Re: decidable
  • From: MoeBlee
• AN INCOMPATIBILITY OF STRONG AI
  • From: LauLuna
• decidable
  • From: bargiax
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: recordmymind
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Chris Menzel
• FO vs. FO(TC)
  • From: un student
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [2]
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Take A Break..Making $20,000.00 using E-Gold (100% legal)
  • From: lycquan
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Jeffrey Ketland
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• "Theorem" in Mendelson ?
  • From: Question
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: recordmymind
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: recordmymind
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: david petry
• Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??
  • From: Blake Manner
• 4. Land mammal-whale transition
  • From: NILS BÖRJESSON
• Mathematics greatest ontological blunder
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: recordmymind
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: completeness of predicate calculus
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén is dead
  • From: George Dance
• Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [2]
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [1]
  • From: Conbra
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: recordmymind
• Re: Atomic Formulas, Atomic Sentences, Atomic Theories, and Atomic Structures
  • From: Bertie Reed
• Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types
  • From: Bertie Reed
• Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Atomic Formulas, Atomic Sentences, Atomic Theories, and Atomic Structures
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Why?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [1]
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [1]
  • From: Conbra
• Take A Break..Making $20,000.00 using E-Gold (100% legal)
  • From: PerakianJ
• Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!
  • From: John Jones
• LCC'06 submissions deadline extended to June 15
  • From: royer
• OMEGA of the thermal field, T=2.7 K is 2/3
  • From: NILS BÖRJESSON
• H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers
  • From: recordmymind
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Why?
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Why?
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: georgie
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Derivation Problem
  • From: Logic Noob
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Universal Generalization
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Universal Generalization
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Universal Generalization
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Universal Generalization
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Derivation Problem
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Derivation Problem
  • From: Logic Noob
• Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!
  • From: Jan Burse
• Sixteenth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Universal Generalization
  • From: Owen
• Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!
  • From: John Jones
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Universal Generalization
  • From: Newberry
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Qualia and Numerals
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: about law of excluded middle
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: about law of excluded middle
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: about law of excluded middle
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: about law of excluded middle
  • From: William Elliot
• about law of excluded middle
  • From: Per Freem
• Atomic Formulas, Atomic Sentences, Atomic Theories, and Atomic Structures
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Derivation Problem
  • From: Jeffrey Ketland
• Re: Derivation Problem
  • From: Conbra
• Advantages of mathematical 'finitism'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Fifteenth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• Re: A constructivist review of Number
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: george
• Derivation Problem
  • From: Logic Noob
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Qualia and Numerals
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: Qualia and Numerals
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Fourteenth new law from the premises of syllogism is as follows
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Proposition
  • From: jonthn
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: george
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• A constructivist approach to Sets
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Die Liste aller natürlichen Zahlen existiert NICHT
  • From: albstorz
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Conbra
• Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Jan Burse
• Qualia and Numerals
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: A constructivist review of Number
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Patrick
• A constructivist review of Number
  • From: John Jones
• Philosophical question about empty set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: georgie
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: george
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: georgie
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: george
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• Re: resolution refutation problem
  • From: David Kinny
• Fun Things about Largest Numbers!
  • From: John Jones
• Re: adding default rules to a theory in default logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: georgie
• Re: adding default rules to a theory in default logic
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: resolution refutation problem
  • From: Tommy Strĝmhaug
• Re: resolution refutation problem
  • From: David Kinny
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: resolution refutation problem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• Re: adding default rules to a theory in default logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: John Jones
• adding default rules to a theory in default logic
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??
  • From: Bertie Reed
• Re: resolution refutation problem
  • From: Tommy Strĝmhaug
• Re: resolution refutation problem
  • From: David Kinny
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: resolution refutation problem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Tenth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Pietro
• Re: Tenth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??
  • From: Blake Manner
• resolution refutation problem
  • From: Tommy Strĝmhaug
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: george
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Pietro
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Pietro
• Re: The largest number
  • From: Nathan Gilbert
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Tenth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Tenth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• The largest number
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: John Jones
• revising general rules (nonmon logic)
  • From: Per Freem
• Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: What are the values of 2-valued logic?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Newberry
• What are the values of 2-valued logic?
  • From: Owen
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Ninth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Barb Knox
• Ninth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: Charlie
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: george
• Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: omega consistency
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Newberry
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Newberry
• Mathematical objects and Discernment
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Newberry
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Assistance required
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: omega consistency
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types
  • From: Bertie Reed
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Pietro
• Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix
  • From: Pietro
• Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Assistance required
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: The Drinkers' Paradox
  • From: george
• Re: The Drinkers' Paradox
  • From: george
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Re: Axioms of Boolean Algebra got from Concept Algebra
  • From: george
• Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix
  • From: Michael De
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: george
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Assistance required
  • From: nijerian
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Our Heavenly Father on 9-14-05 at 11:17 A.M.
  • From: norttene
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: Achim Blumensath
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: Achim Blumensath
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: Bertie Reed
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: Bertie Reed
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix
  • From: Pietro
• Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix
  • From: William Elliot
• Is Goedel's formula true?
  • From: Newberry
• Validity of formulas with a certain prefix
  • From: mordov
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Re: Finitely Many Complete Types
  • From: blakman211
• Finitely Many Complete Types
  • From: blakman211
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: blakman211
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: blakman211
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: Achim Blumensath
• Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Vague or Ambiguous?
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: Newberry
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Li Yi
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Fifth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Vagueness Again
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Vague or Ambiguous?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• [FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web
  • From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger
• Fifth new law from the premises of syllogism
  • From: Conbra
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Vague or Ambiguous?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
  • From: david petry
• Two questions on First order Model Theory
  • From: blakman211
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: FO logic without equality
  • From: David C . Ullrich

We are proud to have Web Hosting and Rack Housing from 9 Net Avenue Deutschland.
(10)