sci.logic
- The mathematicians Magic Hat.,
John Jones
- Stephens Guid To THe Logical Fallacies,
Patrick D. Rockwell
- FOL & completeness,
bargiax
- what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?,
Per Freem
- TeX for logic.,
Frederick Williams
- Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?,
george
- non-standard model of PA,
bargiax
- Natural numbers,
bargiax
- Easier solution to wiles´ one to the fermat congruence,
elcaminodelbudainterior
- The God Paradox,
indoarsman
- String and Language,
John Jones
- What is 'difference'?,
John Jones
- http://nonnewtoniancalculus.googlepages.com/home // Non-Newtonian Calculus,
smithpith
- Re: Why?,
Alan Smaill
- Re: Proof theoretical consistency proofs (Was: Re: Existential, Universal Quantifiers, Generalize Booleans),
Herman Jurjus
- functional extensions,
mmweiss
- Request for link to proof for set theory proposition,
Scott
- Question concerning forms for defining sets,
Scott
- Re: NW vs. infinity,
John Jones
- Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results,
Fuckwit
- Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Newberry
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
george
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Daryl McCullough
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Daryl McCullough
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Newberry
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Newberry
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
Rupert
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.,
jaykov
- Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?,
Sanny
- Boolean vs. Deductive Logic,
Tom
- PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Message not available
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Fuckwit
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Fuckwit
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
George Dance
- Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic,
Frederick Williams
Re: Defining Consistency,
Pietro
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
David C . Ullrich
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Frederick Williams
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Frederick Williams
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Frederick Williams
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Jan Burse
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Charlie-Boo
- Re: Defining Consistency,
herbzet
- Re: Defining Consistency,
David C . Ullrich
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Defining Consistency,
george
- Re: Defining Consistency,
george
- Re: Defining Consistency,
Fuckwit
Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C,
Dan Hitt
No Mid Term Reasoning,
Conbra
can someone help me,
pchowin
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO,
William Elliot
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [19],
Conbra
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem,
Charlie-Boo
- <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,
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,
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,
H. J. Sander Bruggink
- Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem,
goanna
- 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,
Charlie-Boo
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Kevin Karn
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Patricia Shanahan
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Peter Webb
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Ralf Bader
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
david petry
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Rupert
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
R. Srinivasan
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Kevin Karn
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
R. Srinivasan
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Jack Campin - bogus address
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
R. Srinivasan
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Kevin Karn
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Russell Easterly
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
- Message not available
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Nam Nguyen
- The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe),
Nam Nguyen
- Re: The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe),
Nam Nguyen
- Re: The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe),
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Frederick Williams
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Nam Nguyen
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Karl Malbrain
- Message not available
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
- Message not available
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Karl Malbrain
Message not availableMessage not availableRe: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Russell Easterly
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Rupert
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Message not availableRe: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
abo
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Jack Campin - bogus address
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Jack Campin - bogus address
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
david petry
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Stephen Harris
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Stephen Harris
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Stephen Harris
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
david petry
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
george
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
herbzet
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
herbzet
- Message not available
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Jan Burse
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Jan Burse
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Jan Burse
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Jan Burse
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Jan Burse
- Message not available
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
herbzet
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
herbzet
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
herbzet
- Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
John Jones
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Ross A. Finlayson
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe,
Peter Niessen
Re: Potential Things,
George Dance
Why why why,
Mr_Wizzird
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory,
george
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [18],
Conbra
[FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web,
Boris 'pi' Piwinger
