sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Fine-tuning object 'relationship'
  • From: userjn845
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Fine-tuning object 'relationship'
  • From: Dag Yo
• Re: Biggest maths fraud in history
  • From: george
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Biggest maths fraud in history
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Fine-tuning object 'relationship'
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Fine-tuning object 'relationship'
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: The Logical Magician's Card Trick
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• HZ and John Jones hate PJMUT.
  • From: pjmutnick
• the lies of the liars.
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: Fine-tuning object 'relationship'
  • From: Dag Yo
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Godel, Rosser and Turing in 1 Easy Step - and Why would we want to?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Christmass theory.
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: pj mutts digital orifice joys exclusively for sci logic and alt philosophy
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Christmass theory.
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Godel, Rosser and Turing in 1 Easy Step - and Why would we want to?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Jim Burns
• Re: A resolution to the Russel paradox
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Godel, Rosser and Turing in 1 Easy Step - and Why would we want to?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: THE METAPHYSICAL SCIENCE OF RELIGION - why this is relevant to sci.logic
  • From: Marshall
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: THE METAPHYSICAL SCIENCE OF RELIGION - why this is relevant to sci.logic
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: RCA0
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: THE METAPHYSICAL SCIENCE OF RELIGION - why this is relevant to sci.logic
  • From: Marshall
• Re: THE METAPHYSICAL SCIENCE OF RELIGION - why this is relevant to sci.logic
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: The Logical Magician's Card Trick
  • From: userjn845
• Re: The Logical Magician's Card Trick
  • From: Marshall
• Re: A resolution to the Russel paradox
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: george
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: george
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: george
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: george
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: ChrisX
• The Logical Magician's Card Trick
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: Zaljohar
• Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: Zaljohar
• Only Systems with Symbols that I like Constitute Logical Systems, Marshall, etc.
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Dual Set Theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: djrt20
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Kenneth Doyle
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Marshall
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: djrt20
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Fine-tuning object 'relationship'
  • From: userjn845
• RCA0
  • From: djrt20
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Because your posts are inappropriate for sci.logic.
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: djrt20
• Re: Because your posts are inappropriate for sci.logic.
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Because your posts are inappropriate for sci.logic.
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Because your posts are inappropriate for sci.logic.
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: ChrisX
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Marshall
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: an another question
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: an another question
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: ChrisX
• Re: an another question
  • From: Gc
• an another question
  • From: Gc
• Re: a question
  • From: Gc
• Re: a question
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: a question
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: a question
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: adverb in FIRST ORDER LOGIC
  • From: ChrisX
• Re: a question
  • From: Gc
• Re: a question
  • From: Gc
• Re: a question
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: a question
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Logical Options
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: a question
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Merry Christmas to all.
  • From: Prai Jei
• Re: a question
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: a question
  • From: Gc
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: a question
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Function and Variable: fatal problem?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Closest point on a 3D space
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Function and Variable: fatal problem?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Call for Papers: The 2008 International Conference on Scientific Computing (CSC'08), USA, July 2008
  • From: A. M. G. Solo
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Closest point on a 3D space
  • From: Marco
• Re: Function and Variable: fatal problem?
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Learning Greek Inference using a BASIC STAMP Computer Memory Aid
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: adverb in FIRST ORDER LOGIC
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: a question
  • From: Gc
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• WHY DOES THIS MAN KEEP DEFACING MY POSTS?
  • From: pjmutnick
• wHY DOES THIS MAN KEEP DEFACING MY POSTS ON OTHER NEWSGROUPS?
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: a question
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• A resolution to the Russel paradox
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Closest point on a 3D space
  • From: John Jones
• Closest point on a 3D space
  • From: Marco
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: adverb in FIRST ORDER LOGIC
  • From: Barb Knox
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Being an infantile schizophrenic: fatal problem?
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Function and Variable: fatal problem?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Function and Variable: fatal problem?
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Function and Variable: fatal problem?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: a question
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: a question
  • From: Gc
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Christmass theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: a question
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Sentences
  • From: Frederick Williams
• 5 reasons why Godels incompleteness theorem invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• a question
  • From: Gc
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Sentences
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: William Elliot
• Nothing is carved in stone.
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Rain and unicorns
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Christmass theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: djrt20
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: raydpratt
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Christmass theory.
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: k set theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: herbzet
• Creation Geometry
  • From: Mohamed Al-Dabbagh
• Re: Sentences
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Sentences
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Rain and unicorns
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Christmass theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Sentences
  • From: G . Frege
• Sentences
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Merry Christmas to all.
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: adverb in FIRST ORDER LOGIC
  • From: G . Frege
• semantic treating on English "be"
  • From: Keenlearner
• The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Merry Christmas to all.
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Merry Christmas to all.
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• adverb in FIRST ORDER LOGIC
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Merry Christmas to all.
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: translogi
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Rain and unicorns
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: John Jones
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• semantic for conjunction
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: PiperAlpha167
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Rain and unicorns
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Rain and unicorns
  • From: William Elliot
• [] Rain and unicorns
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: k set theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Rain and unicorns
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Rain and unicorns
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: herbzet
• Rain and unicorns
  • From: myname
• Re: Metamathematical statements and formal systems
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Metamathematical statements and formal systems
  • From: djrt20
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Metamathematical statements and formal systems
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Metamathematical statements and formal systems
  • From: djrt20
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• What Is a Variable?
  • From: Premise Checker
• Re: Godel, Rosser and Turing in 1 Easy Step - and Why would we want to?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Godel, Rosser and Turing in 1 Easy Step - and Why would we want to?
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Godel, Rosser and Turing in 1 Easy Step - and Why would we want to?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Partial recursive functions and minimization
  • From: Twoflower
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: herbzet
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: herbzet
• Arithmetical hierarchy, analytic hierarchy
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: Peter_Smith
• JOHN JONES IS A VERY SICK SCHIZOPHRENIC
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: litespeed1
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Partial recursive functions and minimization
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Is Reductio Required for PA?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: "All" and "any"
  • From: Peter_Smith
• "All" and "any"
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Again I ask, is John Jones a John Nash type of schizophrenic, or what?
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: Is John Jones a John Nash type of schizophrenic, or what?
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: k set theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Is John Jones a John Nash type of schizophrenic, or what?
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Partial recursive functions and minimization
  • From: Twoflower
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Partial recursive functions and minimization
  • From: Twoflower
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Heap of John Jones' you know what theory
  • From: pjmutnick
• Re: Partial recursive functions and minimization
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Partial recursive functions and minimization
  • From: Twoflower
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: herbzet
• Re: set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Is Reductio Required for PA?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Paul Holbach
• Re: set theory
  • From: herbzet
• Is Reductio Required for PA?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The Finite World...
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: k set theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: k set theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• فضيحه ميليسا وجان صليبا بالمايوه
  • From: فواز
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: set theory
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The model of Technical Logic
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• The model of Technical Logic
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: evidence that consensual pedop hilia is ok
  • From: Frederick Williams
• evidence that consensual pedop hilia is ok
  • From: it is not harmful
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Heap Theory
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Heap Theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: set theory
  • From: herbzet
• Re: set theory
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: k set theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: set theory
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Mendelson's propositional calculus: two problems
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: set theory
  • From: John Jones
• Re: set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: set theory
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Jan Burse
• The Life Cycle and Natural Selection
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The empty set
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: set theory
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• www.nikepopularshoes.com cheap wholchildren shoes,bape hoodies,bbc hoodies,evisu hoodies,lrg hoodies,polo hoodiesesale
  • From: shung fei Trade Co.,Ltd
• Re: set theory
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: set theory
  • From: John Jones
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: set theory
  • From: John Jones
• Re: set theory
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Request for Review and Tutorage of Amateur Proof
  • From: Scott
• Re: set theory
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• graph algorithm question
  • From: zl2k
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Call For Papers: WORLDCOMP'08: Computer Science & Computer Engineering Conferences, USA, July 2008
  • From: A. M. G. Solo
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: J P
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: translogi
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: set theory
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• set theory
  • From: part
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Keith Ramsay
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• The Finite World...
  • From: Gcantor3
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The empty set
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: george
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Godel's Theorem and Finitely Axiomatizable Theories
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• k set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Hi to ALL. I just join this group.
  • From: leonleliacan@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: tohoyn
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: tohoyn
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: "This statement is false" a solution
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: good book on combinatory logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• "This statement is false" a solution
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Name of (P => Q) => (~P => ~Q) fallacy?
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Name of (P => Q) => (~P => ~Q) fallacy?
  • From: Scott H
• china wholesale cheap price nike sneakers jordans ugg boots dunk prada gucci puma shoes
  • From: sneakerforsale
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: good book on combinatory logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: good book on combinatory logic
  • From: translogi
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Type Theory 'TT' Corrected.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Is logic nothing more then the boundary of geometric shapes?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Is logic nothing more then the boundary of geometric shapes?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Socrates and the Liar
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Socrates and the Liar
  • From: Gene Ledbetter
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Area OF Self Intersecting Polygon
  • From: RajkiranPro
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Crisis of logical faith
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Crisis of logical faith
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: The empty set
  • From: george
• Re: The empty set
  • From: george
• Re: The empty set
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Is logic nothing more then the boundary of geometric shapes?
  • From: Pick_Q
• Re: The empty set
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Is logic nothing more then the boundary of geometric shapes?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Is logic nothing more then the boundary of geometric shapes?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The empty set
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: The empty set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: The empty set
  • From: William Elliot
• Type Theory 'TT' Corrected.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Theory of Forms- Correct Intro
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: The empty set
  • From: george
• Re: The empty set
  • From: george
• Re: The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: Aleck T .
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Is logic nothing more then the boundary of geometric shapes?
  • From: Pick_Q
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: Theory of Forms- Correct Intro
  • From: SK
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Sum-of_Products Negation
  • From: translogi
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Sum-of_Products Negation
  • From: evansstev
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Mathmatical fogbanks
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Mathmatical fogbanks
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Mathmatical fogbanks
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• The Jesus bed connection.
  • From: alanejackson
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Mathmatical fogbanks
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Mathmatical fogbanks
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: looking for relations
  • From: translogi
• Re: Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Is infinite Euclidean space non-euclidean?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Philosophers argue self-referencing statements are invalid therefore Godels theorem is invalid as it uses these statements
  • From: translogi
• Re: Philosophers argue self-referencing statements are invalid therefore Godels theorem is invalid as it uses these statements
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Symmetry from Ancient Greeks
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Mathmatical fogbanks
  • From: herbzet
• Re: 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: herbzet
• What is up with dating now-days?
  • From: rvz1fqp4
• Re: Theory X.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: What is the Size of V in this theory?
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: What is the Size of V in this theory?
  • From: berry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Points and Postions - my feelings on the matter
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Points and Postions - my feelings on the matter
  • From: smn
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: list of solution manuals updated
  • From: sruthi . agaram
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Theory X.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Theory X.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Straightening out Curvature
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: berry
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: berry
• Re: good book on combinatory logic
  • From: translogi
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: berry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: berry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Theory X.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: good book on combinatory logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: 'Two' incommensurables?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: good book on combinatory logic
  • From: translogi
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: translogi
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Better to rot in hell, then poser mirrors all over the place
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: berry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Philosophers argue self-referencing statements are invalid therefore Godels theorem is invalid as it uses these statements
  • From: treusdrie
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: berry
• jobs website
  • From: it . jse0
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: berry
• Re: good book on combinatory logic
  • From: Jack Campin - bogus address
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: Robert E. Beaudoin
• Points and Postions - my feelings on the matter
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Symmetry from Ancient Greeks
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: 'Two' incommensurables?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: 'Two' incommensurables?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: 'Two' incommensurables?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: tchow
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Mathmatical fogbanks
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Jan Burse
• good book on combinatory logic
  • From: translogi
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: 'Two' incommensurables?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: herbzet
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: abo
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: Robert E. Beaudoin
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: 'Two' incommensurables?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• A type theory with a universal set in it.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: X
  • From: Zaljohar
• 'Two' incommensurables?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: X
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: pboparis
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: pboparis
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Please stop replying to elsiemelsi
  • From: James Burns
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Please stop replying to elsiemelsi
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Jason Simons
• Re: Foundations of logic?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: Jason Simons
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: X
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Foundations of logic?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: herbzet
• Re: 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: herbzet
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: Jason Simons
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: Jason Simons
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• Re: X
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: X
  • From: Zaljohar
• Foundations of logic?
  • From: david_lapierre
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: X
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: X
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Please stop replying to elsiemelsi
  • From: Colin
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: looking for relations
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: X
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: looking for relations
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Peter_Smith
• X
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Philosophers argue self-referencing statements are invalid therefore Godels theorem is invalid as it uses these statements
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: John Jones
• Re: 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: John Jones
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: tchow
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: looking for relations
  • From: translogi
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C. Ullrich
• Enderton SOLUTION
  • From: Chase
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Jesse F. Hughes
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: tchow
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: predicate in a predicate
  • From: William Elliot
• predicate in a predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Butch Malahide
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: herbzet
• Re: 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: herbzet
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: Robert E. Beaudoin
• Re: Philosophers argue self-referencing statements are invalid therefore Godels theorem is invalid as it uses these statements
  • From: Chase
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The approximate culprit
  • From: Chase
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• New Books & Magazines up to 95% Off
  • From: Keri
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Philosophers argue self-referencing statements are invalid therefore Godels theorem is invalid as it uses these statements
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: Trouble lies in the solution.
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Philosophers argue self-referencing statements are invalid therefore Godels theorem is invalid as it uses these statements
  • From: zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx
• The approximate culprit
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Trouble lies in the solution.
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: George admitts colin leslie dean is correct
  • From: Jason Simons
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: Jason Simons
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: Jason Simons
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Philosophers argue self-referencing statements are invalid therefore Godels theorem is invalid as it uses these statements
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Ramsey says axiom of reducibility is invalid therefore Godels incompleteness theorem invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David Ullrich
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Eusebius
• Re: looking for relations
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: LauLuna
• adjective noun first order logic
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: Chase
• Re: looking for relations
  • From: Eusebius
• Can someone name this fallacy?
  • From: Jason Simons
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: LauLuna
• looking for relations
  • From: translogi
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: translogi
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: list of solution manuals updated
  • From: ecdespain
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: William Elliot
• Current List of Solution Manuals...
  • From: fwaterfish
• Re: solution manuals
  • From: fwaterfish
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: tchow
• Re: Set Theory with Reflection Principles
  • From: philneo2001
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: tchow
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Trouble lies in the solution.
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: A beginner's guide to forcing
  • From: george
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: Gc
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Enderton problem
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: John Jones
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: What is the Size of V in this theory?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: flamestar
• Enderton problem
  • From: dpowen
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: What is the Size of V in this theory?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Just a small type theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Just a small type theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Technical Animism
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: What is the Size of V in this theory?
  • From: Zaljohar
• Technical Animism
  • From: John Jones
• [NOTSPAM] for a good logical time (*)
  • From: Rega
• Re: The Kaleidoscope of Next
  • From: J P
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: flamestar
• Re: J class theory with comprehension corrected.
  • From: MoeBlee
• The Kaleidoscope of Next
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: translogi
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: flamestar
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: translogi
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Skolem functions and AC
  • From: Gc
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: solution manuals
  • From: respect86
• Re: solution manuals
  • From: respect86
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Skolem functions and AC
  • From: Rupert
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: Ken Pledger
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Tommi Höynälänmaa
• Re: strange non theorem in S4
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: Jan Burse
• Skolem functions and AC
  • From: Gc
• Re: Conservativity and CH
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Pears and apples
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: What is the Size of V in this theory?
  • From: Rupert
• AZ class theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Ackermann's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Ackermann's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: hype
• Re: Infinitesimals
  • From: G . Frege
• Infinitesimals
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Ackermann's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: John Jones
• Constants occuring free in FOL formulae?
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: Alan Smaill
• 'Infinite aggregates' puzzle
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ...
  • From: John Jones
• Re: list of solution manuals updated
  • From: lost_stone_2004_3
• Re: Ackermann's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• Pears and apples
  • From: Dalgora Nulla
• رسائل وسايط حب ورومانسية vip
  • From: فواز
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: LordBeotian
• Ackermann's set theory
  • From: Zaljohar
• strange non theorem in S4
  • From: translogi
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: translogi
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: What is the Size of V in this theory?
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: How can you prove S5 |-A <==> S4|-<>[]A ?
  • From: Ace0f_5pades
• Re: What is the Size of V in this theory?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: My Simple 18 pages of Plato's Forms
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• My Simple 18 pages of Plato's Forms
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• [FAQ, 06/11/05] Mathematical logic on the web
  • From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger
• Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ...
  • From: thinker

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