sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Universal Logic ?
  • From: lebel
• Re: The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: Rupert
• Re: The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: Rupert
• Re: The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: george
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: MoeBlee
• The incompleteness theorems, Sigma-1-completeness, induction, all that
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• [] bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: Owen
• Any First Order or Set Theoretic versions of Fitch Operators?
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: george
• Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: Owen
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: xilog
• Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: How many orders does our brains have?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: How many orders does our brains have?
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: xilog
• Re: Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: klxto
• Must higher-order logic be typed?
  • From: yuyang08
• How many orders does our brains have?
  • From: yuyang08
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Propositional calculus
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: FRIEDMANN EQUATION and KEMIEMANN EQUATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: Rupert
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Why so many overlapping terminologies
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Why so many overlapping terminologies
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Rupert
• FRIEDMANN EQUATION and KEMIEMANN EQUATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • From: NILS BÖRJESSON
• Re: Why so many overlapping terminologies
  • From: Terry Padden
• Re: Why so many overlapping terminologies
  • From: Terry Padden
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: Rupert
• bXc = b -> b=0 (with regularity but not infinity)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Every set x equinumerous with a set y disjoint from x?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Every set can be ... ordered?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• sigma-1 completeness vs. 1-consistency
  • From: george
• Mathematician (Contractor/Consultant)
  • From: jmcgowan
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Question about McKinsey and Tarski paper
  • From: semiopen
• Re: Question about McKinsey and Tarski paper
  • From: semiopen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Why so many overlapping terminologies
  • From: patro
• Re: Why so many overlapping terminologies
  • From: William Elliot
• Why so many overlapping terminologies
  • From: Terry Padden
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Question about McKinsey and Tarski paper
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Concerning simple induction.
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: galathaea
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: A theorem of Lindenbaum regarding FOL metalogical properties
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: aussiekevin
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: apptitude
  • From: George Dance
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Is this set theory?
  • From: jeg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• Re: apptitude
  • From: visa
• Re: Go Flip A Coin (chance knowledge)
  • From: Jean-Claude Arbaut
• Re: A theorem of Lindenbaum regarding FOL metalogical properties
  • From: mordov
• A theorem of Lindenbaum regarding FOL metalogical properties
  • From: mordov
• Re: Concerning simple induction.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Concerning simple induction.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: Rupert
• the consistency of predicate logic.
  • From: kjd_72
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: george
• Re: Concerning simple induction.
  • From: Dave L. Renfro
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: feffemannen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Concerning simple induction.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Concerning simple induction.
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Concerning simple induction.
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Concerning simple induction.
  • From: Bill Taylor
• [] what is "software"
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: summary of some of my forecasts of the past 10 years; birdflu,global warming,Iraq
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: tchow
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Current World Issues affecting people
  • From: uiucedward@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: tchow
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: uiucedward@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Dave L. Renfro
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: tchow
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: zxcv_890
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: [] what is "software"
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: [] what is "software"
  • From: Fuckwit
• [] what is "software"
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: zxcv_890
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: george
• Re: Representation of "slightly greater than"
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: zxcv_890
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: zxcv_890
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: zxcv_890
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: what is "software"
  • From: William Elliot
• what is "software"
  • From: zxcv_890
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: apptitude
  • From: George Dance
• Re: apptitude
  • From: George Dance
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: galathaea
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: tchow
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: tchow
• Re: Representation of "slightly greater than"
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Representation of "slightly greater than"
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Representation of "slightly greater than"
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: hi i am the newer
  • From: galathaea
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: galathaea
• Re: Current World Issues affecting people
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Current World Issues affecting people
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: tchow
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Henrik
• A question about FOL theories and models
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Current World Issues affecting people
  • From: thepossibilities
• Re: apptitude
  • From: priya
• Re: apptitude
  • From: priya
• Re: apptitude
  • From: visa
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Current World Issues affecting people
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Current World Issues affecting people
  • From: thepossibilities
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: tchow
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: apptitude
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: apptitude
  • From: priya
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Ebay Item: Puzzles Galore
  • From: wooks
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• apptitude
  • From: visa
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• hi i am the newer
  • From: visa
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Russell Easterly
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Patrick
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: A question in Logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: A question in Logic
  • From: Peter Einstein
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: john
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Patrick
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: looking for a tricky answer
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: oorionus
• Re: looking for a tricky answer
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: john
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: george
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: george
• Re: Representation of "slightly greater than"
  • From: s . j . lagoe
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Are you really any different from gaggling geese?
  • From: john
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Rupert
• Call for participants
  • From: Katy
• Subject: Existence is necessary ??
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Newberry
• bloated axioms revisited
  • From: george
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: feffemannen
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: feffemannen
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: feffemannen
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: bargiax
• Re: ordinals
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: ordinals
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: ordinals
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: ordinals
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: ordinals
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: ordinals
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: ordinals
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Provable in T?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Provable in T?
  • From: bargiax
• ordinals
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: Need help with logic proof
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Need help with logic proof
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: george
• Torkel Franzén Lives!
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: george
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: george
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Proofs to programs
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: Barb Knox
• Tennenbaum's theorem
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: george
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: george
• Re: Proofs to programs
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Proofs to programs
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Representation of "slightly greater than"
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Proofs to programs
  • From: Jan Burse
• Representation of "slightly greater than"
  • From: s . j . lagoe
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: george
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Stan
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Stan
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Stan
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Scott
• Re: Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Enumerable sets
  • From: Rupert
• Enumerable sets
  • From: herbzet
• Re: When does p imply q (redux)?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: When does p imply q (redux)?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Proofs to programs
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Proofs to programs
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Newberry
• Quantifier Elimination vs Model Complete Theories
  • From: Blake Manner
• Characterization of Gamma_0
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Alan Smaill
• i=infinity;0= i*sin k*pi, 1=cos k*pi, k=m/n, n=4,m=0-00; c*G=20=const, 1/sgrt2>G>0.5, 6<N = NA ^2surf/NAvol<7 ; h/N =11=const, e+i*pi; D universe =f(h)*1/ (a))^4, T=f( m, S, D)
  • From: ivars . fabriciuss
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Mike Kelly
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Complete types
  • From: galathaea
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Fephisto
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Scott
• Re: Complete types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: nthiebaud2000
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: george
• Re: Need help proving (Ax)(~P(x)) |- ~(Ex)(P(x))
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Stan
• Re: Need help proving (Ax)(~P(x)) |- ~(Ex)(P(x))
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: oorionus
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Complete types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: George Dance
• Re: Complete types
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: Complete types
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: Complete types
  • From: Blake Manner
• unification
  • From: raldo
• Re: Complete types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question about non-classical logics
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Complete types
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: Complete types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: george
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: george
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Stan
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: george
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: george
• Re: Need help proving (Ax)(~P(x)) |- ~(Ex)(P(x))
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Complete types
  • From: James Dolan
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Set Theories with Universes
  • From: Fuckwit
• Question about non-classical logics
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Complete types
  • From: galathaea
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Newberry
• Complete types
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Rupert
• Re: The Pirate Game Theory Problem and the Trouble with Voter Apathy
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Fephisto
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Need help proving (Ax)(~P(x)) |- ~(Ex)(P(x))
  • From: Mike H
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Define a complete type realized by exactly three elements
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The Pirate Game Theory Problem and the Trouble with Voter Apathy
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Stan
• Re: The Pirate Game Theory Problem and the Trouble with Voter Apathy
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Let's you & him fight
  • From: Rupert
• Let's you & him fight
  • From: george
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Stan
• The variant (invariance of light) paradox
  • From: jt64
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: george
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The Pirate Game Theory Problem and the Trouble with Voter Apathy
  • From: Matthew Wampler-Doty
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• looking for a tricky answer
  • From: n . lutz
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: The Pirate Game Theory Problem and the Trouble with Voter Apathy
  • From: Rupert
• Re: The Pirate Game Theory Problem and the Trouble with Voter Apathy
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: question
  • From: banterjee
• Re: The Pirate Game Theory Problem and the Trouble with Voter Apathy
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Stan
• Re: Question about Set Theory
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Need help proving (Ax)(~P(x)) |- ~(Ex)(P(x))
  • From: MoeBlee
• Need help proving (Ax)(~P(x)) |- ~(Ex)(P(x))
  • From: Mike H
• The Pirate Game Theory Problem and the Trouble with Voter Apathy
  • From: Matthew Wampler-Doty
• How the God created our terrestrial world?
  • From: socratus
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Question about Set Theory
  • From: vfilipch
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Fephisto
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: When does p imply q (redux)?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: question
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Scott
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Chris Menzel
• question
  • From: sabom2006
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Can we using formulas to know anything about the God ?
  • From: socratus
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: When does p imply q (redux)?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Tarski finite problem
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Rupert
• Question regarding infinite length integers
  • From: Scott
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: george
• Tarski finite problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Lob's Theorem in Ethics
  • From: Matthew Wampler-Doty
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Does Science give us knowledge about reality?
  • From: Merlinman2005
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: herbzet
• Re: When does p imply q (redux)?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Does Science give us knowledge about reality?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: A curiousity
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• A curiousity
  • From: Fephisto
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Does Science give us knowledge about reality?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Does Science give us knowledge about reality?
  • From: Ankmin
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: When does p imply q (redux)?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: When does p imply q (redux)?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Does Science give us knowledge about reality?
  • From: Rupert
• When does p imply q (redux)?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Can we using formulas to know anything about the God ?
  • From: Ankmin
• Does Science give us knowledge about reality?
  • From: Ankmin
• Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence.
  • From: berry
• Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence.
  • From: ram . rachum
• Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence.
  • 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: The mathematicians Magic Hat.
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence.
  • From: ram . rachum
• Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence.
  • From: ram . rachum
• Re: Definablity of substructures and undecidable theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Definablity of substructures and undecidable theories
  • From: Isaac
• Re: Definablity of substructures and undecidable theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Definablity of substructures and undecidable theories
  • From: Isaac
• A cure for IBS, CROHNS, MS, CANCER ?
  • From: caesarjbsquitti
• Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega
  • From: Patricia Shanahan
• Re: OPEN Invitation
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega
  • From: William Elliot
• Arbitrary subsets of omega
  • From: Blake Manner
• OPEN Invitation
  • From: ahmedat
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Can we using formulas to know anything about the God ?
  • From: socratus
• Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: Dmitry Sustretov <dmitry.sustretov@xxxxxxxxx>
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Dmitry Sustretov <dmitry.sustretov@xxxxxxxxx>
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Curing ulcers, IBS, CROHNS, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SCHIZOPHRENIA, CANCER...?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Question on Conservative Extensions
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Question on Conservative Extensions
  • From: berry
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: berry
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: berry
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Dmitry Sustretov <dmitry.sustretov@xxxxxxxxx>
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Dmitry Sustertov <dmitry.sustretov@xxxxxxxxx>
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: Curing ulcers, IBS, CROHNS, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SCHIZOPHRENIA, CANCER...?
  • From: caesarjbsquitti
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Question on Conservative Extensions
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Litania
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: fred . galvin
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: abo
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: abo
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: abo
• Re: Question on Conservative Extensions
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Question on Conservative Extensions
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Elementary substructures.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Elementary substructures.
  • From: Blake Manner
• Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering
  • From: Blake Manner
• Question on Conservative Extensions
  • From: Blake Manner
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Rupert
• 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: 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: 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: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• 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: Rupert
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Natural numbers
  • 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: Rupert
• Re: The List of All Lists
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: The List of All Lists
  • From: Jeremy Boden
• 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: 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: 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: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Generating truth tables
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Generating truth tables
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Generating truth tables
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: abo
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat.
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat.
  • From: The Ghost In The Machine
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Curing ulcers, IBS, CROHNS, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SCHIZOPHRENIA, CANCER...?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Curing ulcers, IBS, CROHNS, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SCHIZOPHRENIA, CANCER...?
  • From: caesarjbsquitti
• Re: Natural numbers
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • 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: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• 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: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Re: mu-operator
  • From: tac-tics
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• 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: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: non-standard model of PA
  • From: fjmd1a
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Completely lost ..
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: help, can someone help me with one equation
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: mu-operator
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Rupert
• Re: mu-operator
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Completely lost ..
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Completely lost ..
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Completely lost ..
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Re: help, can someone help me with one equation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• help, can someone help me with one equation
  • From: Alicia
• Re: mu-operator
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Completely lost ..
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: mu-operator
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: A universal introduction rule
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: mu-operator
  • From: Rupert
• Re: DNF to CNF
  • From: No Way
• Re: mu-operator
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Completely lost ..
  • From: William Elliot
• mu-operator
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Completely lost ..
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Rupert
• an interesting pattern
  • From: digorysulkirk
• Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set
  • From: Scott
• Completely lost ..
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?
  • From: george
• Re: Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: abo
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: abo
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: jaykov
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Question on strength of Robinson's Q
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Inside or Outside ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat.
  • From: John Jones
• Re: String and Language
  • From: John Jones
• Re: String and Language
  • From: John Jones
• Inside or Outside ?
  • From: bargiax
• Question on strength of Robinson's Q
  • From: espoors
• An Interesting Subject
  • From: theo3
• Re: String and Language
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: FOL & completeness
  • From: bargiax
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: abo
• Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?
  • From: george

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