Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: G. Frege <nomail@invalid>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:35:43 +0100
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:32:38 -0000, translogi <wilemien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Relevance for the present thread?
In intuitionistic logic [...]
F.
--
E-mail: info<at>simple-line<dot>de
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: translogi
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: Jack Campin - bogus address
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: Peter_Smith
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: translogi
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: Alan Smaill
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- From: translogi
- Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- Prev by Date: Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- Next by Date: Re: Proof of a certain theorem in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman
- Previous by thread: Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- Next by thread: Re: A missing definition in "Gödel's Proof" by Nagel & Newman (open letter)
- Index(es):
