sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: omega
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Computability theory paradox
  • From: Snis Pilbor
• Re: Computability theory paradox
  • From: Snis Pilbor
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: omega
  • From: Allan Adler
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: omega
  • From: Allan Adler
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: omega
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Some questions about definitions and axioms.
  • From: translogi
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: omega
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• omega
  • From: Allan Adler
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Computability theory paradox
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Computability theory paradox
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Computability theory paradox
  • From: Snis Pilbor
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Some questions about definitions and axioms.
  • From: voidfrog
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: Dan Christensen
• Re: number theory
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: An Axiomatic system Equivalent to ZFC.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: An Axiomatic system Equivalent to ZFC.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• An Axiomatic system Equivalent to ZFC.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: number theory
  • From: part
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: number theory
  • From: William Elliot
• number theory
  • From: part
• The USA is becoming a police state
  • From: Joe
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: abo
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The identity of geometries
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• michael lalonde
  • From: Tomson_R
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: teen dating com , webcam , matchmaking marriage , american agency , online dating singles
  • From: samsharawat
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Modal logic MV
  • From: translogi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Zaljohar
• michael lalonde
  • From: Tomson_R
• michael lalonde
  • From: Tomson_R
• mike lalonde
  • From: Tomson_R
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• johnreed-Math and Universe, Part 5, September 27, 2007
  • From: johnlawrencereedjr
• The identity of geometries
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: MoeBlee
• true
  • From: chrisyboy121
• Evidence that the USA is becoming a police state
  • From: Joe
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: george
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: MoeBlee
• 102nd Birthday of E=mc2 ( 27 Sep 1905- 27 Sep.2007) Complete tribute in book Einstein's E=mc2 generalized , www.ajayonline.us
  • From: wingie
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: michael lalonde .
  • From: sudbury
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Equivalence of N and R?
  • From: george
• Re: Equivalence of N and R?
  • From: george
• Generalized Quine-McCluskey
  • From: sashaDOTmal
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Jack Tuszynski
  • From: tuszynskijack
• Jack Tuszynski
  • From: tuszynskijack
• Jack Tuszynski
  • From: tuszynskijack
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: what is the real box in Microsoft Word?
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: what is the real box in Microsoft Word?
  • From: Peter Webb
• what is the real box in Microsoft Word?
  • From: translogi
• Re: GL |- (<>A & []B) -> <>(A & []~A & B & []B)
  • From: translogi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Feedback please
  • From: gl-science.com
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: William Elliot
• The set of all finite ordinals and Omega.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: GL |- (<>A & []B) -> <>(A & []~A & B & []B)
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: No Identity Bijection for Omega
  • From: george
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Cronus and Self Reference
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: No Identity Bijection for Omega
  • From: george
• Godel, self-reference, and framework/object confusion
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Self-reference and identity
  • From: John Jones
• Re: ~~ The God Paradox ~~
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Self-reference and identity
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Equivalence of N and R?
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Self-reference and identity
  • From: John Jones
• looking for book's solutions
  • From: oscar1034
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Countable models of ZFC
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: No Identity Bijection for Omega
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Self-reference and identity
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Self-reference and identity
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Self-reference and identity
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Self-reference and identity
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: No Identity Bijection for Omega
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: William Elliot
• FOREX ONLINE INVESTMENT
  • From: easyyforexmoney
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Fun With Figures
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Fun With Figures
  • From: lillystarsill
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Analytic propositions
  • From: Fuckwit
• Analytic propositions
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: discrete math problem
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: djrt20
• GL |- (<>A & []B) -> <>(A & []~A & B & []B)
  • From: translogi
• Krama and the method of interpretation (Part - 1)
  • From: Akash
• Re: It is irrational to put rational and irrational numbers on the same line. Sorry guys.
  • From: Frederick Williams
• It is irrational to put rational and irrational numbers on the same line. Sorry guys.
  • From: finite guy
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: discrete math problem
  • From: backustwo
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: discrete math problem
  • From: Anke Truss
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: djrt20
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Introduction to the Mimansa
  • From: Akash
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: discrete math problem
  • From: beard
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: djrt20
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: djrt20
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: discrete math problem
  • From: backustwo
• discrete math problem
  • From: backustwo
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Set theoretic conservativity results
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: djrt20
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Charity, desire and satisfaction
  • From: Akash
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: djrt20
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: djrt20
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: J. Burse
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Simplest uncomputable set
  • From: LordBeotian
• Do PA prove Con(Q)?
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Q on consistency... of a lind.
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Can one prove tautology using (unnegated) CNF?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Q on consistency... of a lind.
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Q on consistency... of a lind.
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Q on consistency... of a lind.
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Q on consistency... of a lind.
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Q on consistency... of a lind.
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Q on consistency... of a lind.
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: The shocking truth about the naturals
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Greenhelm Engineering Opportunities
  • From: flaviu.barsan@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: The shocking truth about the naturals
  • From: george
• Re: The shocking truth about the naturals
  • From: Boris Borcic
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Can one prove tautology using (unnegated) CNF?
  • From: narutocanada@xxxxxxxxx
• Can one prove tautology using (unnegated) CNF?
  • From: narutocanada@xxxxxxxxx
• Q on consistency... of a lind.
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: No Identity Bijection for Omega
  • From: george
• Re: The shocking truth about the naturals
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Peano arithmetic and transfinite induction
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Peano arithmetic and transfinite induction
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The shocking truth about the naturals
  • From: Boris Borcic
• Re: The shocking truth about the naturals
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Equivalence of N and R?
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Get Your Space on Pishnut Space For Free and Send Free Ecards
  • From: Nina Fawn
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• new puzzle....try this
  • From: prince9919
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about the Diagonal Method.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question about the Diagonal Method.
  • From: georgie
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: ilias
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Theory of God and the universe
  • From: bleedingvein
• Re: Theory of God and the universe
  • From: bleedingvein
• Re: Embedding classical logic theories into intuitionistic logic
  • From: translogi
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Embedding classical logic theories into intuitionistic logic
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Embedding classical logic theories into intuitionistic logic
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• electrical
  • From: sathishkumar . 102
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Finitely Valid Formula
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Question about the Diagonal Method.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• NIST Nuclear Standard Removed because of Crap like this
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Continuum hypothesis
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• [FAQ, 06/11/05] Mathematical logic on the web
  • From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger
• Re: Question about the Diagonal Method.
  • From: MoeBlee

• Windows
• Science
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint

sci.tech-archive.net  > Archive  > sci.logic  > 2007-09