sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Why did Boolos change his mind?
  • From: Caboose
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: what is reification?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: what is reification?
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Proof of a certain theorem in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: what is reification?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
  • From: G . Frege
• Proof of a certain theorem in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman
  • From: translogi
• Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
  • From: translogi
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: [] dimensions
  • From: kunzmilan
• Re: A question about ackermann's set theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: A question about ackermann's set theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: A question about ackermann's set theory.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A question about ackermann's set theory.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: A question about ackermann's set theory.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: A question about ackermann's set theory.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A question about ackermann's set theory.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• A question about ackermann's set theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: what is reification?
  • From: mbstevens
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: translogi
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• what is reification?
  • From: YKY
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: [] dimensions
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: [] dimensions
  • From: abseeguiz
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: David Auerbach
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: David Auerbach
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: translogi
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: george
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: george
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: george
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: george
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: translogi
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• for solution manuals visit
  • From: techie
• Re: The Wolfram 2,3 Turing Machine Research Prize - Announcement
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: translogi
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: translogi
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: Min JIANG
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: Min JIANG
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: planetnoob
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Godel uses the axiom of reducibility which make his incompleteness theorem invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Godel uses impredicative statements which make his incompleteness theorem invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Is a set object exhaustive?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: translogi
• Re: question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: translogi
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• question regrading tautology and valid formula
  • From: Min JIANG
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: [] dimensions
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: [] dimensions
  • From: Sparky
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Rupert
• Zuhair's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: gelatinx
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: translogi
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: translogi
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: [] dimensions
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: [] dimensions
  • From: Sparky
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: What do you call it when two things are similar, but the difference is emphasized?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: What do you call it when two things are similar, but the difference is emphasized?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Cantor's definition of set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: What do you call it when two things are similar, but the difference is emphasized?
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• What do you call it when two things are similar, but the difference is emphasized?
  • From: Scott H
• Cantor's definition of set
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Model here, model there
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Model here, model there
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• The Wolfram 2,3 Turing Machine Research Prize - Announcement
  • From: egalois
• [] dimensions
  • From: William Elliot
• dimensions
  • From: Sparky
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Modal logic from T B and 4 to S5
  • From: translogi
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Modal logic from T B and 4 to S5
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Naive Comprehension.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Naive Comprehension.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Is there anything illogical in Christians asking athiests to prove that there is not a God ?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Is there anything illogical in Christians asking athiests to prove that there is not a God ?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Is there anything illogical in Christians asking athiests to prove that there is not a God ?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: John Jones
• Modal logic from T B and 4 to S5
  • From: translogi
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: evidence on pedophilia
  • From: commander zero rides
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Prove that, if x AND x-1 = 0 then x=2^m (m>=0).
  • From: Srinu
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Is there anything illogical in Christians asking athiests to prove that there is not a God ?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Godel and the Limitations of Proof
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: 2nd paradox in Godels incomplertenes theorem that makes it inval
  • From: george
• Re: 2nd paradox in Godels incomplertenes theorem that makes it inval
  • From: translogi
• Re: 2nd paradox in Godels incomplertenes theorem that makes it inval
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: 2nd paradox in Godels incomplertenes theorem that makes it inval
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Is there anything illogical in Christians asking athiests to prove that there is not a God ?
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Is there anything illogical in Christians asking athiests to prove that there is not a God ?
  • From: mbstevens
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Prove that, if x AND x-1 = 0 then x=2^m (m>=0).
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Prove that, if x AND x-1 = 0 then x=2^m (m>=0).
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: 3rd paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that makes it inva
  • From: george
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Is there anything illogical in Christians asking athiests to prove that there is not a God ?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: 2nd paradox in Godels incomplertenes theorem that makes it inval
  • From: george
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: translogi
• Re: Prove that, if x AND x-1 = 0 then x=2^m (m>=0).
  • From: Srinu
• Re: Non standard models of PA
  • From: Rupert
• Non standard models of PA
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Is there anything illogical in Christians asking athiests to prove that there is not a God ?
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Prove that, if x AND x-1 = 0 then x=2^m (m>=0).
  • From: Srinu
• Re: Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: George does not understand what the meta-theory of Godel is
  • From: george
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: 2nd paradox in Godels incomplertenes theorem that makes it invalid
  • From: george
• Re: 3rd paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that makes it invalid
  • From: george
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• CFP: INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS FOR CRISIS AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
  • From: jdokas@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Linear temporal logic with only past
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: William Elliot
• A garbage free logic forum?
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Linear temporal logic with only past
  • From: Christophe Jacquet
• 3rd paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that makes it invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• 2nd paradox in Godels incomplertenes theorem that makes it invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: George does not understand what the meta-theory of Godel is
  • From: george
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: Marshall
• George admitts colin leslie dean is correct
  • From: elsiemelsi
• george does not understand godels impredicative statements 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 2
  • From: george
• Re: peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 2
  • From: george
• Re: george does not understand godels impredicative statements
  • From: george
• Re: Please don't respond to elsiemelsi
  • From: translogi
• Re: peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 2
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorems paradox does not need a formal proof
  • From: george
• Re: Please don't respond to elsiemelsi
  • From: george
• Re: George does not understand the criteria for undecidablity
  • From: george
• Re: Please don't respond to elsiemelsi
  • From: george
• Re: George does not understand what the meta-theory of Godel is
  • From: george
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: george
• Re: Please don't respond to elsiemelsi
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Please don't respond to elsiemelsi
  • From: Jan Burse
• Please don't respond to elsiemelsi
  • From: Colin
• Re: What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 2
  • From: Mitch
• George does not understand what the meta-theory of Godel is
  • From: elsiemelsi
• What is not(Axiom of Choice), exactly ?
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Alan Smaill
• George does not understand the criteria for undecidablity
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: LauLuna
• george does not understand godels impredicative statements
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 3
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 3
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Peter smith should get a new job or rewrite his book on Godel
  • From: elsiemelsi
• peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 3
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 2
  • From: Peter_Smith
• peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: American Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS
  • From: elsiemelsi
• peter smith is wrong about GODEL AND IMPREDICATIVE DEFINITIONS
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: impredicative statements
  • From: translogi
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: george
• Re: impredicative statements
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: impredicative statements
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: impredicative statements
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: Newberry
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: george
• Re: American Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Godel was arrogant and a law unto himself
  • From: george
• Re: Godel was arrogant and a law unto himself
  • From: george
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: translogi
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• impredicative statements
  • From: translogi
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: American Logic
  • From: CreatheistUU
• Re: Godel was arrogant and a law unto himself
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel was arrogant and a law unto himself
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Godel was arrogant and a law unto himself
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem 2 proven invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: george
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: george
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: Arturo Magidin
• Re: Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Question regarding the diagonal method.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Marshall
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Marshall
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: george
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: American Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: george
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: george
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: translogi
• Re: Modal logic MV
  • From: translogi
• Godel and Kant, and 'incompleteness'
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: george
• How to divide by zero, from mathematics of non-life to the formula of big bang
  • From: ExtrêmeAchillès
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: george
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: george
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: george
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: American Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: george
• Re: evidence on pedophilia
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: evidence on pedophilia
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: george
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: george
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: george
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: george
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: george
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: george
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: george
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: Peter_Smith
• American Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorems paradox does not need a formal proof
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Modal logic MV
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: george
• Re: Sad day for Logic
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Peter smith is wrong -as are all other mathematicians/logicians PART 2
  • From: george
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: george
• Sad day for Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: What is the connection between complexity of computation and sub recursive hierarchies?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• What is the connection between complexity of computation and sub recursive hierarchies?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: basic textbook on set theory
  • From: Frederick Williams
• basic textbook on set theory
  • From: translogi
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: translogi
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Godels incompleteness theorems paradox does not need a formal proof
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Peter smith is wrong -as are all other mathematicians/logicians PART 2
  • From: Rupert
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: Newberry
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: John Jones
• see me
  • From: pankaj . itm2010
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: george
• Re: Peter smith is wrong -as are all other mathematicians/logicians
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: translogi
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: george
• Re: Peter smith is wrong -as are all other mathematicians/logicians
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Marshall
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: John Jones
• How can I count a set of numbers if all the numbers are inside the set?
  • From: John Jones
• Peter smith is wrong -as are all other mathematicians/logicians
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: translogi
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: translogi
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• A recursion theoretic look at incompleteness
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: translogi
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Computability theory question
  • From: Snis Pilbor
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• for technology and invention news www.24hoursnews.blogspot.com
  • From: careless-caring
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: mbstevens
• Re: How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: MoeBlee
• How does one construct the set of natural numbers?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Peter Smiths book on Godel
  • From: george
• Re: Peter Smiths book on Godel
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: george
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: David
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Peter Smiths book on Godel
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: The indeterminacy of number
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Peter Smiths book on Godel
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Peter Smiths book on Godel
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Computability theory question
  • From: Thomas Paetz
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Computability theory question
  • From: Snis Pilbor
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Preferred definition of Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Second order arithmetic
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Computability theory question
  • From: Thomas Paetz
• Re: Second order arithmetic
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Computability theory question
  • From: Snis Pilbor
• Second order arithmetic
  • From: djrt20
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: george
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: David
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: mbstevens
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: SBCeconomics
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• Russell paradox solved by infinite multi-layering
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• The complete disproof of Godels incompleteness theorem -paradox and invalid axioms
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The indeterminacy of number
  • From: mbstevens
• The indeterminacy of number
  • From: John Jones
• Request for Reviewer/Tutor of Amateur Cardinality Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Jack Tuszynski
  • From: tuszynskijack2
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: mbstevens
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• When are fallacies acceptable?
  • From: David
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• www.24hoursnews.blogspot.com
  • From: careless-caring
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: translogi
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: george
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Logic and Probability
  • From: translogi
• Logic and Probability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: george
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: george
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: george
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godels imcompleteness theorem depends on the axioms of PM- but these axioms are invalid
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Wholesale all NIKE.shox.Air max.AF1.TN.Jordan.shoes.Apple Ipods Nano, Xbox 360, Sony PS3, Sony PSP.wii.all laptops http://www.new-nikeshoes.com
  • From: nike shoes
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Marshall
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Embedding S5 in K4
  • From: translogi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: MoeBlee
• proof of GL |- [] A --> [][] A
  • From: translogi
• Re: For those who want to see the arguments that Godels incompleteness theorem is invalid
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Godels imcompleteness theorem depends on the axioms of PM- but these axioms are invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Godels imcompleteness theorem depends on the axioms of PM- but these axioms are invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• why we practice?
  • From: chahal_singh1980@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: God is self-referential
  • From: herbzet
• Re: For those who want to see the arguments that Godels incompleteness theorem is invalid
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• God is self-referential
  • From: BroDavii
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: For those who want to see the arguments that Godels incompleteness theorem is invalid
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: For those who want to see the arguments that Godels incompleteness theorem is invalid
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorems are a complete failure and invali
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorems are a complete failure and invalid
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: iterative set theory: My version
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that inval
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that inval
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Newberry
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that inval
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: Hamish Reid
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Cosmological and local geometry
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidat
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that inval
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that inval
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that inval
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidate Godel
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Alan Smaill
• A simple paradox in Godels incompleteness theorem that invalidate Godel
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: Rupert
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: David Libert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: Rupert
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: Rupert
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• is Godel lieing when he states this-part 2
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Mathematicians dont understand Godels incompleteness theorems
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: iterative set theory: My version
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: iterative set theory: My version
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: zencycle
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Some questions about definitions and axioms.
  • From: translogi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Mathematicians dont understand Godels incompleteness theorems
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness t
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: guyontheinet
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Second order inferences
  • From: LordBeotian
• Is Godel lieing when he states this
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorems are a complete failure and invali
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorems are a complete failure and in
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness t
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness t
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorems are a complete failure and invalid
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness t
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness t
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: abo
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness t
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness theor
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Second order inferences
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Second order inferences
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Second order inferences
  • From: Peter_Smith
• sentential logic - curious problem
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: abo
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • 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: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: translogi
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness theor
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Second order inferences
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Second order inferences
  • From: george
• Re: Second order inferences
  • From: LordBeotian
• evidence on pedophilia
  • From: commander zero rides
• evidence on pedophilia
  • From: commander zero rides
• evidence on pedophilia
  • From: commander zero rides
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Second order inferences
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Countable models of ZFC
  • From: george
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: george
• Second order inferences
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Godels use of the theory of types makes his incompleteness theor
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Scott and George's Teaching Thread
  • From: Scott
• iterative set theory: My version
  • From: Zaljohar
• 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: omega
  • From: Allan Adler
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• [FAQ, 06/11/05] Mathematical logic on the web
  • From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Axiom of infinity and the set of all hereditary finite sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Godel proves his own incompleteness theorems invalid
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Please critique my set theoretic approach to a classic syllogistic fallacy
  • From: Dan Christensen

We are proud to have Web Hosting and Rack Housing from 9 Net Avenue Deutschland.
(11)