sci.logic

• Thread Index

---

• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The problem of action
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godel AND Rosser in one easy step
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Toposes and Proper Classes
  • From: Mattias Wikstrom
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• FOL vs 2OL
  • From: Bill Taylor
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Gc
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Gc
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Gc
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Gc
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Proven godel used invalid axiom AR thus his ttheorm invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Satisfiablility and CNF
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: LaTeX and FOL
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: LaTeX and FOL
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: LaTeX and FOL
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: What's the weakest metatheory in which Goedel's theorem can be proved?
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: LaTeX and FOL
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: LaTeX and FOL
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Jan Burse
• Hilbert is back..
  • From: m31
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Jan Burse
• LaTeX and FOL
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: Rupert
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: LTL vs. CTL
  • From: sasha mal
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: LTL vs. CTL
  • From: Achim Blumensath
• Re: LTL vs. CTL
  • From: sasha mal
• Re: LTL vs. CTL
  • From: sasha mal
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: janburse
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: Rupert
• Re: LTL vs. CTL
  • From: hbdere
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: LTL vs. CTL
  • From: Achim Blumensath
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: What's the weakest metatheory in which Goedel's theorem can be proved?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: What's the weakest metatheory in which Goedel's theorem can be proved?
  • From: abo
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica,
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and
  • From: Rupert
• Re: What's the weakest metatheory in which Goedel's theorem can be proved?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative statm
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: What's the weakest metatheory in which Goedel's theorem can be proved?
  • From: MoeBlee
• LTL vs. CTL
  • From: sasha mal
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: unsatisfiable 3SAT puzzle
  • From: Philipp Zumstein
• Re: unsatisfiable 3SAT puzzle 11 clauses total, 8 minimum for specific variable, 3 for signed variable
  • From: zuphilip
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: kleptomaniac666_
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Gc
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Gc
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Gc
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Gc
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Gc
• What's the weakest metatheory in which Goedel's theorem can be proved?
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Rupert
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative statments invalidates his theorem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative statments invalidates his theorem
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: G . Frege
• Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative statments invalidates his theorem
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Pierre Asselin
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Gc
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Heap-Set Theory H-S
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Inequality Question
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: MoeBlee
• Inequality Question
  • From: Sundus
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version of PM and is thus invalid
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: unsatisfiable 3SAT puzzle 11 clauses total, 8 minimum for specific variable, 3 for signed variable
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version of PM and is thus invalid
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Understanding statements without sense
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Peter Webb
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Understanding statements without sense
  • From: translogi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Order and Disorder in Sign Strings
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version of PM and is thus invalid
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version of PM and is thus invalid
  • From: Colin
• Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta
  • From: WM
• Order and Disorder in Sign Strings
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version of PM and is thus invalid
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version of PM and is thus invalid
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version of PM and is thus invalid
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version of PM and is thus invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Godel uses the axiom of reducibilty in his incompleteness theorem which makes it invalid
  • From: elsiemelsi
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Understanding statements without sense
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: adjective noun predicate
  • From: William Elliot
• adjective noun predicate
  • From: Keenlearner
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: questions
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Understanding statements without sense
  • From: John Jones
• Re: questions
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: questions
  • From: Frederick Williams
• questions
  • From: gane1064
• questions
  • From: gane1064
• questions
  • From: gane1064
• questions
  • From: gane1064
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• Download free Projects
  • From: TechGuru
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: Zaljohar
• Language
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: Scott
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: Scott
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: Scott
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• The proof of the inconsistency of UST
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: tautology, logical implication & equivalent
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: tautology, logical implication & equivalent
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: tautology, logical implication & equivalent
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: MoeBlee
• tautology, logical implication & equivalent
  • From: Jimmy
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: Scott
• Re: Conventional terms for the following: "contributing causes," "collective motivators," fallacy of (A => B) => (~A => ~B)?
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: jobs
  • From: dale
• Re: Conventional terms for the following: "contributing causes," "collective motivators," fallacy of (A => B) => (~A => ~B)?
  • From: Scott H
• Conventional terms for the following: "contributing causes," "collective motivators," fallacy of (A => B) => (~A => ~B)?
  • From: Scott H
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• البرنامج الاسطوري الذي ادهش الملايين !! فقط ضع صورتك ويعطيك شكلك بعد 40 سنه
  • From: فواز
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: herbzet
• jobs
  • From: dker1bear
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Curent Theory of Logic is utterly mistaken !
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Loop
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Loop
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Loop
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Nam D. Nguyen
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: thoughtlessly101
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: george
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: george
• Re: since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• since AK was reviewing Enderton's article,
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• why is conventional wisdom acceptable?
  • From: george
• "structure" or "interpretation" as opposed to "model"
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Gc
• Re: Who Cares if a System is Inconsistent or Incomplete or Any of that Stuff?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Who Cares if a System is Inconsistent or Incomplete or Any of that Stuff?
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: thoughtlessly101
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Godel AND Rosser in one easy step
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Herman Jurjus
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Request for Review/Tutorage for Amateur Proofs
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: smn
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Gc
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Gc
• Does logic show us all the possibilities of object presentation?
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Gc
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Question regarding limit ordinals and transfinite cardinals.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Gc
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: unsatisfiable 3SAT puzzle
  • From: translogi
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: george
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Gc
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Gc
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Gc
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Gc
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Gc
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: Research on Gmail
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Curent Theory of Logic is utterly mistaken !
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: Fuckwit
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Research on Gmail
  • From: Sampath Ranganathan
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Gc
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Gc
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Generalized inductive definition of theorems by Shoenfield
  • From: thoughtlessly101
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: george
• Re: Type theory and UST
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: george
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: george
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• unsatisfiable 3SAT puzzle
  • From: translogi
• Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: My last theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• The logic of the priviliged binary
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: george
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: george
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: translogi
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Type Theory 2: TT2
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: My last theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Type Theory 2: TT2
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: My last theory.
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: My last theory.
  • From: lwalke3
• Type theory and UST
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: model in the usual sense
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Type Theory 2: TT2 Corrected.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Type Theory 2: TT2 Corrected.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Type Theory 2: TT2
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Second-order and Higher-order Logic
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Zal's Last Theory
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Zal's Last Theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: Ross A. Finlayson
• Re: Zal's Last Theory
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Re :The empty set
  • From: G . Frege
• Re :The empty set
  • From: apoorv
• Re: model in the usual sense
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Zal's Last Theory
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: translogi
• Final call for papers
  • From: john
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Zal's Last Theory
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Type Theory 2: TT2
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: george
• Type Theory 2: TT2
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: ZF like theory with a universal set of all sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Frege function and variable
  • From: John Jones
• Re: model in the usual sense
  • From: Alan Smaill
• Re: PA-models and Gödel's Incompleteness
  • From: george
• model in the usual sense
  • From: george
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: conservative extensions in higher-order logic
  • From: Jan-Georg Smaus
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: Jan-Georg Smaus
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: ChrisX
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: translogi
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• ZF like theory with a universal set of all sets.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Set Size theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: PA-models and Gödel's Incompleteness
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: conservative extensions in higher-order logic
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: PA-models and Gödel's Incompleteness
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: PA-models and Gödel's Incompleteness
  • From: tohentoon
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Frege function and variable
  • From: tohentoon
• Frege function and variable
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Charlie33
• Re: ... The Gift of Power, Discovery of DIVINE Creation!
  • From: MTwain
• Re: conservative extensions in higher-order logic
  • From: Jan-Georg Smaus
• Re: PA-models and Gödel's Incompleteness
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: PA-models and Gödel's Incompleteness
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: george
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• PA-models and Gödel's Incompleteness
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: conservative extensions in higher-order logic
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Crisis in mathematics
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: translogi
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Three types of object
  • From: William Elliot
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Charlie33
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Charlie33
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Three types of object
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Charlie33
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Charlie33
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Crisis in mathematics
  • 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: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: translogi
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: J P
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: adverb in FIRST ORDER LOGIC
  • From: ChrisX
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: ChrisX
• Re: Crisis in mathematics
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Crisis in mathematics
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Crisis in mathematics
  • From: David C . Ullrich
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: conservative extensions in higher-order logic
  • From: Jan-Georg Smaus
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: Peter_Smith
• testing for equi- satisfaliability
  • From: translogi
• Re: Crisis in mathematics
  • From: OP
• Crisis in mathematics
  • From: elsiemelsi
• What is the size of X ?
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: My last theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: conservative extensions in higher-order logic
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Testing wffs for equivalency
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Testing wffs for equivalency
  • From: un student
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: My last theory.
  • From: lwalke3
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Question regarding Dedekind-infinite sets and consistency.
  • From: Scott
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• CFP - The 1st International Workshop on Bit-Precise Reasoning (BPR 2008)
  • From: bit.precise.reasoning@xxxxxxxxx
• Re: Question about Life.
  • From: bavisionary
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• conservative extensions in higher-order logic
  • From: Jan-Georg Smaus
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: MoeBlee
• Question about Life.
  • From: socratus
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Charlie33
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: george
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: george
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: george
• Re: Has BS Anand Refuted Gödel's Theorem
  • From: george
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: Has BS Anand Refuted Gödel's Theorem
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Who Cares if a System is Inconsistent or Incomplete or Any of that Stuff?
  • From: translogi
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: Currant Standard Thoerure of Logique is, wallop
  • From: M_SHIRAISHI
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Has BS Anand Refuted Gödel's Theorem
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: J P
• tv
  • From: himana
• Re: Curent Theory of Logic is utterly mistaken !
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Curent Theory of Logic is utterly mistaken !
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: Zaljohar
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: Peter_Smith
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Currant Standard Thoerure of Logique is, wallop
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: k set theory
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Dual Set Theory.
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: MoeBlee
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: george
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: george
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Marshall
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: george
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: Douglas Eagleson
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Daryl McCullough
• Re: What Is a Variable?
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: Frederick Williams
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: J P
• Current Standard Theor of Logic is
  • From: M_SHIRAISHI
• Current Theory of Logic is ．．．
  • From: M_SHIRAISHI
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Curent Theory of Logic is utterly mistaken !
  • From: M_SHIRAISHI
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: R. Srinivasan
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: J P
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: herbzet
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Newberry
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Technique and Foundation
  • From: Jan Burse
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: LauLuna
• Re: Russell's paradox and ZF(C)
  • From: G . Frege
• Re: Ackermann's class theory and The Wikipedia
  • From: G . Frege
• Technique and Foundation
  • From: John Jones
• Re: Who Cares if a System is Inconsistent or Incomplete or Any of that Stuff?
  • From: Michal Przybylek
• Re: Torkel Franzen on truth
  • From: george
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Chris Menzel
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: Proof and entailment
  • From: Michal Przybylek
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox.
  • From: Charlie-Boo
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's p