sci.logic

• Thread Index

• Searching for Happiness ?
  • From: big Hart
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• maseeg
  • From: big Hart
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Peano's Axioms
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Gc
• Re: Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Gc
• Peano's second axiom.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Peano's Axioms
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Question?
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Question?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question?
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Question?
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Question?
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Indefinite extensibility and absolute generality: read all about it!
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Sci
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Sci
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Sci
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Sci
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: question
  • From: abo
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: definition of identity
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• definition of identity
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: translogi
• Sci
  • From: Zaljohar
• New Future Center is working for Student Help....
  • From: Bushra
• Poll: would you rather...
  • From: IceMountainWater
• Re: Set theory: what is meant by "unbounded"?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• help from readers of the book "NonMonotonic Reasoning"by G. Antoniou
  • From: joss reasoner
• Re: Set theory: what is meant by "unbounded"?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Set theory: what is meant by "unbounded"?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• 30 June, Birthday of 'Special Theory of Relativity' paper
  • From: lucky
• question
  • From: Rupert
• fields of positive characteristic
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Set theory: what is meant by "unbounded"?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Dave L. Renfro
• Re: Set theory: what is meant by "unbounded"?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Set theory: what is meant by "unbounded"?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Some exercises on first order logic
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Set theory: what is meant by "unbounded"?
  • From: Snis Pilbor
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Some exercises on first order logic
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: guyontheinet
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Marshall
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Marshall
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Some exercises on first order logic
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: J. Burse
• A conjunctis ad divisa
  • From: William of Ockham
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: poopdeville
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Marshall
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: tohentoon
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Some exercises on first order logic
  • From: Simone Mayer
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Elementary questions, need some clarification (model theory)
  • From: Augustine
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Elementary questions, need some clarification (model theory)
  • From: Achim Blumensath
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Elementary questions, need some clarification (model theory)
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Elementary questions, need some clarification (model theory)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: MoeBlee
• Elementary questions, need some clarification (model theory)
  • From: Augustine
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Virgil
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Some speculative Anthropology of Mathematics
  • From: Ben
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: David W . Cantrell
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Does logic belong to philosophy or mathematics?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Domain Independence vs. Dependence (Conbra)
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Domain Independence vs. Dependence (Conbra)
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: abo
• Domain Independence vs. Dependence (Conbra)
  • From: J. Burse
• Domain Independence vs. Dependence (Conbra)
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Higher studies in mathematical sciences
  • From: sougata
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: tohentoon
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Relative Value
  • From: brett . michalson
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: usenet Logic
  • From: amitsopan@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: question
  • From: David Libert
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Calculating One Compound Proposition on Concept Algebra -- "P bigger than L does not equal to D" and "P bigger than L equals to D"
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: Abstract -> formal? [was: Re: Formalisation]
  • From: george
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: george
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Abstract -> formal? [was: Re: Formalisation]
  • From: george
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Abstract -> formal? [was: Re: Formalisation]
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Abstract -> formal? [was: Re: Formalisation]
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Logic
  • From: Mah Mar 3
• Re: Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Indefinite Extensibility and Computationalism
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• High Tech
  • From: samitharansara
• High Tech
  • From: samitharansara
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Conbra
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Virgil
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Conbra
• Math Ebooks
  • From: Dark Master
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: guyontheinet
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Number Theory Question
  • From: TheBeaNerd
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: translogi
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: format for proofs
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Challenge for C-B on Occams Razor
  • From: translogi
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: translogi
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Question about the Logic of a Dyadic Relation.
  • From: Robert Sheskey
• format for proofs
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Challenge for C-B on Occams Razor
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Challenge for C-B on Occams Razor
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Challenge for C-B on Occams Razor
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: guyontheinet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: guyontheinet
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Question about the Logic of a Dyadic Relation.
  • From: aussiekevin
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: guyontheinet
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: george
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: translogi
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: translogi
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: translogi
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: translogi
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: a quick question about infinity...
  • From: Frederick Williams
• a quick question about infinity...
  • From: jacksonscottsly@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: translogi
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: translogi
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: neilist
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: translogi
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• part-whole semantic relationship
  • From: xama
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Who could reason logical results from A |- B and C |- D?
  • From: Conbra
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The whole is greater that the part
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The whole is greater that the part
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: translogi
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Mitch
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Number Theory Question
  • From: Jeremy Watts
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: uniform continuity
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: William Hale
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Virgil
• Call For Participation: WORLDCOMP'07: joint conferences in CS, CE, and applied computing, June 25-28, 2007, Las Vegas
  • From: A. M. G. Solo
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• uniform continuity
  • From: harry
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Virgil
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Virgil
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Virgil
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Virgil
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Prenex form
  • From: translogi
• The whole is greater that the part
  • From: binaryvle
• Re: Prenex form
  • From: expizzaiolo
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Prenex form
  • From: translogi
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Prenex form
  • From: Thomas Käufl
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: abo
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Virgil
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Formalisation
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Virgil
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: PARADISE LOST: Debunking Cantor's theory
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Formalisation
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Prenex form
  • From: expizzaiolo
• Re: Prenex form
  • From: translogi
• Prenex form
  • From: expizzaiolo
• Re: non-standard models of botany
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: non-standard models of botany
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Request for Review of ZF Inconsistency Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: translogi
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Highlight reel from the George and Phil show, Re: I am really getting tired of people stepping all over my conversations
  • From: James Burns
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• non-standard models of botany
  • From: george
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Seeking Leibniz reference.
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Seeking Leibniz reference.
  • From: translogi
• Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
  • From: george
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Formalizing the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Highlight reel from the George and Phil show, Re: I am really getting tired of people stepping all over my conversations
  • From: george
• Re: Highlight reel from the George and Phil show, Re: I am really getting tired of people stepping all over my conversations
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
  • From: george
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: George Dance
• Seeking Leibniz reference.
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: translogi
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Subsets of cardinals in a well-ordering
  • From: Justin Palumbo
• Re: Subsets of cardinals in a well-ordering
  • From: Justin Palumbo
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers
  • From: george
• Re: RF claims a uniform probability distribution over an infinite set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: translogi
• Re: Phool nearly discovers equipollence
  • From: J. Burse
• RF claims a uniform probability distribution over an infinite set
  • From: george
• Re: Phool nearly discovers equipollence
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Answer "how to prove ~(P <--> Q) |- ~P <-->Q "
  • From: Conbra
• [FAQ, 06/11/05] Mathematical logic on the web
  • From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger

• Windows
• Science
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint