sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat.
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Rupert
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Rupert
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• The mathematicians Magic Hat.
  • From: John Jones
• Re: String and Language
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: String and Language
  • From: John Jones
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: String and Language
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: String and Language
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: abo
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• Re: TeX for logic.
  • From: Jim
• Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Natural numbers
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Natural numbers
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• Re: TeX for logic.
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?
  • From: Charlie
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?
  • From: Charlie
• Stephens Guid To THe Logical Fallacies
  • From: Patrick D. Rockwell
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: abo
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?
  • From: rrw050
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: abo
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: abo
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?
  • From: Per Freem
• TeX for logic.
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Natural numbers
  • From: george
• Re: Natural numbers
  • From: george
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Natural numbers
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: String and Language
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: String and Language
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The God Paradox
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Natural numbers
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Dan
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Natural numbers
  • From: Frederick Williams
• non-standard model of PA
  • From: bargiax
• Natural numbers
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: The God Paradox
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The God Paradox
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: The God Paradox
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: The God Paradox
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: herbzet
• Easier solution to wiles´ one to the fermat congruence
  • From: elcaminodelbudainterior
• Re: Why?
  • From: MoeBlee
• The God Paradox
  • From: indoarsman
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: String and Language
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: What is 'difference'?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: What is 'difference'?
  • From: John Jones
• String and Language
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: What is 'difference'?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: functional extensions
  • From: mmweiss
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: functional extensions
  • From: mmweiss
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• What is 'difference'?
  • From: John Jones
• http://nonnewtoniancalculus.googlepages.com/home // Non-Newtonian Calculus
  • From: smithpith
• Re: Why?
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Request for link to proof for set theory proposition
  • From: Scott
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Question concerning forms for defining sets
  • From: Scott
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Proof theoretical consistency proofs (Was: Re: Existential, Universal Quantifiers, Generalize Booleans)
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: functional extensions
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Proof theoretical consistency proofs (Was: Re: Existential, Universal Quantifiers, Generalize Booleans)
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: abo
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: abo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Question concerning forms for defining sets
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Request for link to proof for set theory proposition
  • From: mmweiss
• functional extensions
  • From: mmweiss
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: george
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: george
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question concerning forms for defining sets
  • From: Bill Hale
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Question concerning forms for defining sets
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for link to proof for set theory proposition
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Request for link to proof for set theory proposition
  • From: Scott
• Question concerning forms for defining sets
  • From: Scott
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: abo
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: NW vs. infinity
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Stephen Harris
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: george
• Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Jan Burse
• Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Boolean vs. Deductive Logic
  • From: Tom
• Re: The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe)
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe)
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe)
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C
  • From: Dan Hitt
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Karl Malbrain
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Peter Niessen
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Peter Niessen
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: david petry
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Karl Malbrain
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?
  • From: v4venkatesh
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: abo
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?
  • From: Sanny
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: goanna
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Boolean vs. Deductive Logic
  • From: Tom
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: david petry
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: herbzet
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: albstorz
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Boolean vs. Deductive Logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: george
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Boolean vs. Deductive Logic
  • From: Tom
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• PC(1): An introductory formal logic
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C
  • From: skokodyn
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Ralf Bader
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: george
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: H. J. Sander Bruggink
• Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C
  • From: Dan Hitt
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Defining Consistency
  • From: Pietro
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: george
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C
  • From: skokodyn
• Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Why why why
  • From: Ali
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: No Mid Term Reasoning
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: No Mid Term Reasoning
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: No Mid Term Reasoning
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: No Mid Term Reasoning
  • From: Jan Burse
• Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C
  • From: Dan Hitt
• Re: No Mid Term Reasoning
  • From: shahrukh
• No Mid Term Reasoning
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: george
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: george
• Re: can someone help me
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• can someone help me
  • From: pchowin
• Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO
  • From: William Elliot
• Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [19]
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Ralf Bader
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: david petry
• Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [18]
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Peter Webb
• 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: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: Kevin Karn
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Potential Things
  • From: George Dance
• Why why why
  • From: Mr_Wizzird
• Why why why
  • From: Mr_Wizzird
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [18]
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory
  • From: george
• Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [18]
  • From: Conbra
• [FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web
  • From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger

We are proud to have Web Hosting and Rack Housing from 9 Net Avenue Deutschland.
(17)