sci.logic

• Date Index

---

• Re: Uncharged organic molecule can bind negatively charged ions, Frederick Williams
• (paypal accept)(www.top-saler.com)discount,sneakers wholesale,suppliers for sneakers china,nike, yongyingwen
• payple accept)(www.top_saler.com)hats,Ecko,Sean John,True religion jeans,Zooyork,t-, yongyingwen
• Semantics of First-Order Languages, malcobe
  • Re: Semantics of First-Order Languages, Thomas Käufl
    • Re: Semantics of First-Order Languages, malcobe
• Mathematics is nothing but an ad hoc discipline, elsiemelsi
  • Re: Mathematics is nothing but an ad hoc discipline, Daryl McCullough
    • Re: Mathematics is nothing but an ad hoc discipline, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Mathematics is nothing but an ad hoc discipline, elsiemelsi
    • Re: Mathematics is nothing but an ad hoc discipline, elsiemelsi
• Drug of the gods, Aiya-Oba
• Informative tautologies, John Jones
  • Re: Informative tautologies, Marshall
    • Re: Informative tautologies, John Jones
      • Re: Informative tautologies, Marshall
      • Re: Informative tautologies, John Jones
  • Re: Informative tautologies, jesko
    • Re: Informative tautologies, John Jones
      • Re: Informative tautologies, jesko
      • Re: Informative tautologies, John Jones
      • Re: Informative tautologies, jesko
• is there a set of all ordinals, elsiemelsi
  • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, aatu . koskensilta
  • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, MoeBlee
    • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, reasterly
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, elsiemelsi
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, elsiemelsi
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, MoeBlee
    • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, elsiemelsi
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, MoeBlee
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, MoeBlee
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, aatu . koskensilta
  • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, Frederick Williams
    • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, elsiemelsi
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, elsiemelsi
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, aatu . koskensilta
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, James Burns
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, elsiemelsi
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, MoeBlee
      • Re: is there a set of all ordinals, James Burns
• Simple category theory question, denotingcomplex
• Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Zaljohar
  • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., MoeBlee
    • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., MoeBlee
  • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Charlie-Boo
    • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Frederick Williams
      • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Zaljohar
      • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Zaljohar
      • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Frederick Williams
      • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., G . Frege
    • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Zaljohar
    • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Zaljohar
  • Re: Notation for FOL and Set Thoery., Frederick Williams
• Law of Excluded Middle, Kenneth Bull
  • Re: Law of Excluded Middle, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Law of Excluded Middle, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Law of Excluded Middle, William Elliot
  • Re: Law of Excluded Middle, Grouchy
  • Re: Law of Excluded Middle, jesko
• Vacuous Equivalences, apoorv
  • Re: Vacuous Equivalences, MoeBlee
    • Re: Vacuous Equivalences, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Vacuous Equivalences, MoeBlee
  • Re: Vacuous Equivalences, G . Frege
    • Re: Vacuous Equivalences, apoorv
• Totality and Order, John Jones
  • Re: Totality and Order, jesko
• A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Jan Burse
    • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, aatu . koskensilta
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Jan Burse
    • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Jan Burse
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Jan Burse
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Jan Burse
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Jan Burse
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Jan Burse
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Chris Menzel
      • Re: A further question on weak but categorical axiomatisations of the naturals, Jan Burse
• ZFC inconsistent due to Burali-Forti paradox, elsiemelsi
  • Re: ZFC inconsistent due to Burali-Forti paradox, Jan Burse
    • Re: ZFC inconsistent due to Burali-Forti paradox, elsiemelsi
      • Re: ZFC inconsistent due to Burali-Forti paradox, Jan Burse
      • Re: ZFC inconsistent due to Burali-Forti paradox, elsiemelsi
• Mathematics at threshold of a new era, elsiemelsi
  • Re: Mathematics at threshold of a new era, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: Mathematics at threshold of a new era, G . Frege
      • Re: Mathematics at threshold of a new era, elsiemelsi
  • Re: Mathematics at threshold of a new era, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: Mathematics at threshold of a new era, Marshall
• L Univers Du Discours., amphysique2005
• 1.618, gd
• Re: internet jobs, maddilaty
• Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
  • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, William Elliot
    • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
  • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, MoeBlee
    • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, MoeBlee
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
    • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, MoeBlee
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, MoeBlee
  • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
    • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
    • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
    • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
  • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
    • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, Scott
      • Re: Request for Review/Tutorage of Amateur Proofs, G . Frege
• The relativity of order and disorder, John Jones
  • Re: The relativity of order and disorder, jesko
    • Re: The relativity of order and disorder, John Jones
      • Re: The relativity of order and disorder, jesko
    • Re: The relativity of order and disorder, kunzmilan
• Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, kleptomaniac666_
  • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, djrt20
  • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, kleptomaniac666_
  • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, tecamac@xxxxxxxxx
    • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Second order arithmetic and higher order arithmetic, Aatu Koskensilta
• Critical Goodness, Aiya-Oba
• Cauchy convergence test is proven wrong, elsiemelsi
• Order and Randomness, John Jones
• A better notation for FOL, Zaljohar
  • Re: A better notation for FOL, Zaljohar
  • Re: A better notation for FOL, Zaljohar
    • Re: A better notation for FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: A better notation for FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: A better notation for FOL, Zaljohar
• Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Frederick Williams
  • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Bill Taylor
    • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Ross A. Finlayson
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., John Jones
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Ross A. Finlayson
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Bill Taylor
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Ross A. Finlayson
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., John Jones
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Frederick Williams
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Bill Taylor
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Frederick Williams
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., Bill Taylor
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., John Jones
      • Re: Is it an object? is it a monad? No! its ..., John Jones
• 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
  • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, David C . Ullrich
  • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Frederick Williams
    • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Message not available
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Frederick Williams
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Frederick Williams
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Frederick Williams
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Marshall
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Frederick Williams
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Frederick Williams
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Frederick Williams
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Frederick Williams
  • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
  • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, The Ghost In The Machine
    • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, The Ghost In The Machine
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, The Ghost In The Machine
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, The Ghost In The Machine
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, lwalke3
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, The Ghost In The Machine
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Fuckwit
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, lwalke3
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, MoeBlee
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, lwalke3
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, MoeBlee
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, MoeBlee
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, James Burns
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, MoeBlee
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Chris Menzel
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Fuckwit
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Jan Burse
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, elsiemelsi
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, The Ghost In The Machine
      • Re: 1=/ .9999999..... proof, Aatu Koskensilta
• pass codes, time4achange78@xxxxxxxxx
• Function composition derivable in Gödels System?, Jan Burse
  • Re: Function composition derivable in Gödels System?, Jan Burse
  • Re: Function composition derivable in Gödels System?, Jan Burse
• Writing FOL, Zaljohar
  • Re: Writing FOL, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing FOL, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Writing FOL, Frederick Williams
    • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing FOL, Frederick Williams
      • Re: Writing FOL, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
    • Re: Writing FOL, Zaljohar
• Reading the universal quantifier, Zaljohar
  • Re: Reading the universal quantifier, aatu . koskensilta
    • Re: Reading the universal quantifier, Zaljohar
  • Re: Reading the universal quantifier, Ken Pledger
• Z Specification for Vigenere Cipher Encryption, john . rohin
  • Re: Z Specification for Vigenere Cipher Encryption, Ken Pledger
• Pan Pipes of the Rhondda, John Jones
• A Suggestion for Demonstrate the Orderly Newsgroup., Douglas Eagleson
• Plato's Realism as Objective Relation, Douglas Eagleson
• what`s wrong with monadic second order logic?, Gc
  • Re: what`s wrong with monadic second order logic?, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: what`s wrong with monadic second order logic?, Gc
      • Re: what`s wrong with monadic second order logic?, Aatu Koskensilta
• ..×ô๑ برنامج رائع للتلاعب بالصور ودمجها وعمل توقيع إحترافي FantaMorph v3.5..×ô๑, فواز
• Paradoxes and Platonism, ginebra8
  • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Gc
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Gc
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, matdumi@xxxxxxxxx
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Message not available
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
    • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, ginebra8
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, ginebra8
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, ginebra8
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, LauLuna
  • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
    • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Jan Burse
  • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, John Jones
    • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, G . Frege
  • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Douglas Eagleson
  • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
    • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Message not available
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, herbzet
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, MoeBlee
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, WM
      • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, kleptomaniac666_
  • Re: Paradoxes and Platonism, Charlie-Boo
• police, kurtstocklmeir
• [beginner] Request for formal methods comparisons (with limitations), Hibou57
  • Re: [beginner] Request for formal methods comparisons (with limitations), Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: [beginner] Request for formal methods comparisons (with limitations), Frederick Williams
• Artistic way of writing FOL., Zaljohar
  • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., Zaljohar
    • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., MoeBlee
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., Zaljohar
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., MoeBlee
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., Zaljohar
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., MoeBlee
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., Zaljohar
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., G . Frege
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., Zaljohar
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., MoeBlee
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., Zaljohar
      • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., MoeBlee
  • Re: Artistic way of writing FOL., aatu . koskensilta
• Re: Initial Model Theorem, george
  • Re: Initial Model Theorem, David C . Ullrich
• Categorical axiomatisations of naturals, reals, etc that are deductively weak, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Categorical axiomatisations of naturals, reals, etc that are deductively weak, abo
    • Re: Categorical axiomatisations of naturals, reals, etc that are deductively weak, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Categorical axiomatisations of naturals, reals, etc that are deductively weak, abo
• Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem, elsiemelsi
• How many theorems are there of this or that complexity?, kleptomaniac666_
  • Re: How many theorems are there of this or that complexity?, kleptomaniac666_
  • Re: How many theorems are there of this or that complexity?, WM
    • Re: How many theorems are there of this or that complexity?, kleptomaniac666_
• Absolute Logic, Aiya-Oba
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Absolute Logic, Aiya-Oba
• What sounds better?, Scott H
  • Re: What sounds better?, William Elliot
    • Re: What sounds better?, Scott H
      • Re: What sounds better?, William Elliot
• Smullyan's Other Paradox, LauLuna
  • Re: Smullyan's Other Paradox, William Elliot
    • Re: Smullyan's Other Paradox, translogi
      • Re: Smullyan's Other Paradox, William Elliot
  • Re: Smullyan's Other Paradox, John Jones
• Ordered pairs and replacement, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Ordered pairs and replacement, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Ordered pairs and replacement, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Ordered pairs and replacement, Zaljohar
    • Re: Ordered pairs and replacement, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Ordered pairs and replacement, Zaljohar
      • Re: Ordered pairs and replacement, Aatu Koskensilta
• Zuhair's ordered pairs, Zaljohar
  • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Zaljohar
    • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Zaljohar
      • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Zaljohar
  • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Chris Menzel
    • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Chris Menzel
    • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Zaljohar
      • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Chris Menzel
      • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Zaljohar
      • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Zaljohar
      • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Chris Menzel
      • Re: Zuhair's ordered pairs, Zaljohar
• The Smullyan paradox, LordBeotian
  • Re: The Smullyan paradox, LauLuna
  • Re: The Smullyan paradox, LauLuna
    • Re: The Smullyan paradox, LordBeotian
      • Re: The Smullyan paradox, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: The Smullyan paradox, LordBeotian
      • Re: The Smullyan paradox, LordBeotian
      • Re: The Smullyan paradox, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: The Smullyan paradox, LauLuna
  • Re: The Smullyan paradox, R. Srinivasan
    • Re: The Smullyan paradox, LordBeotian
      • Re: The Smullyan paradox, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: The Smullyan paradox, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: The Smullyan paradox, R. Srinivasan
    • Re: The Smullyan paradox, R. Srinivasan
• al solution manual manual solution study guide, sms123
• Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Alan Smaill
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, herbzet
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, herbzet
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, aatu . koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, herbzet
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, herbzet
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, herbzet
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Chris Menzel
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, herbzet
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, herbzet
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
    • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Alan Smaill
  • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, OP
    • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Secretly Inconsistent?, LordBeotian
• TMFCS-08 draft paper submission deadline is just few days from now, john
• Mereology in four axiom schemes., Zaljohar
  • Re: Mereology in four axiom schemes., Zaljohar
• What primitive functions are defined over all sets? (What can we choose from?), Charlie-Boo
  • Re: What primitive functions are defined over all sets? (What can we choose from?), MoeBlee
    • Re: What primitive functions are defined over all sets? (What can we choose from?), Charlie-Boo
      • Re: What primitive functions are defined over all sets? (What can we choose from?), MoeBlee
      • Re: What primitive functions are defined over all sets? (What can we choose from?), Charlie-Boo
      • Re: What primitive functions are defined over all sets? (What can we choose from?), MoeBlee
      • Re: What primitive functions are defined over all sets? (What can we choose from?), Charlie-Boo
    • Re: What primitive functions are defined over all sets? (What can we choose from?), Charlie-Boo
• Jobs, himana
• money cannot buy happiness, madhavan
  • Re: money cannot buy happiness, Charlie-Boo
• Ordered pair, Zaljohar
  • Re: Ordered pair, William Elliot
  • Re: Ordered pair, Peter_Smith
    • Re: Ordered pair, Zaljohar
      • Re: Ordered pair, MoeBlee
      • Re: Ordered pair, Zaljohar
      • Re: Ordered pair, G . Frege
      • Re: Ordered pair, MoeBlee
      • Re: Ordered pair, Zaljohar
      • Re: Ordered pair, Fuckwit
      • Re: Ordered pair, MoeBlee
      • Re: Ordered pair, G . Frege
      • Re: Ordered pair, Zaljohar
      • Re: Ordered pair, Zaljohar
      • Re: Ordered pair, Zaljohar
      • Re: Ordered pair, Zaljohar
• Re: The Vedas and the method of interpretation (Part-2), Jan Burse
• Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, ginebra8
  • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, ginebra8
    • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, LauLuna
      • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, ginebra8
      • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, LauLuna
  • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, ginebra8
      • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, ginebra8
      • Re: Choice, Global Choice, No Choice?, LauLuna
• temporal logic US, Eusebius
• When History is Missing, alanejackson
• Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
  • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
    • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., herbzet
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., John Jones
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory with Null heap., Zaljohar
• about partial functions and function notation, petersmithhh
  • Re: about partial functions and function notation, LauLuna
    • Re: about partial functions and function notation, G . Frege
  • Re: about partial functions and function notation, Peter_Smith
• What is negation?, John Jones
  • Re: What is negation?, Frederick Williams
  • Re: What is negation?, Fuckwit
    • Re: What is negation?, John Jones
  • Re: What is negation?, Charlie-Boo
    • Re: What is negation?, John Jones
• Negate a simple sentence, Karlo Lozovina
  • Re: Negate a simple sentence, Chris Menzel
  • Re: Negate a simple sentence, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Negate a simple sentence, Michal Przybylek
    • Re: Negate a simple sentence, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Negate a simple sentence, G . Frege
    • Re: Negate a simple sentence, Zaljohar
      • Re: Negate a simple sentence, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Negate a simple sentence, G . Frege
    • Re: Negate a simple sentence, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Negate a simple sentence, James Burns
    • Re: Negate a simple sentence, G . Frege
      • Re: Negate a simple sentence, G . Frege
• Fat gene? or numbers game?, John Jones
• standard axioms/operators of LTL, Eusebius
  • Re: standard axioms/operators of LTL, Eusebius
    • Re: standard axioms/operators of LTL, Eusebius
• Tower Theory., Zaljohar
  • Re: Tower Theory., Zaljohar
• Is Choice not enough for this?, ginebra8
  • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, Chris Menzel
  • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, ginebra8
      • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, george
      • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, ginebra8
      • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Is Choice not enough for this?, LauLuna
• Re: free softwares, dalexandertia
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: free softwares, Charlie-Boo
• Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
  • Re: Writing First order logic., G . Frege
    • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Jan Burse
      • Re: Writing First order logic., G . Frege
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., G . Frege
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., G . Frege
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., herbzet
      • Re: Writing First order logic., G . Frege
      • Re: Writing First order logic., herbzet
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
    • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., G . Frege
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., G . Frege
  • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
    • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., G . Frege
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
      • Re: Writing First order logic., Zaljohar
      • Re: Writing First order logic., MoeBlee
• Goodstein's theorem, djrt20
  • Re: Goodstein's theorem, Rupert
    • Re: Goodstein's theorem, djrt20
      • Re: Goodstein's theorem, Rupert
      • Re: Goodstein's theorem, djrt20
      • Re: Goodstein's theorem, Rupert
• Re: Introduction to the Mimansa, Jan Burse
• Is P(x,y) Recursively Enumerable if P(N,x) is for every N?, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Is P(x,y) Recursively Enumerable if P(N,x) is for every N?, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: Is P(x,y) Recursively Enumerable if P(N,x) is for every N?, Robert E. Beaudoin
    • Re: Is P(x,y) Recursively Enumerable if P(N,x) is for every N?, Aatu Koskensilta
• Re: 5 reasons why Godels incompleteness theorem invalid, Charlie-Boo
• Re: Set existence, george
  • Re: Set existence, malcobe
  • Re: Set existence, herbzet
• Universal Order Logic, William Elliot
• free codings, massiya07
  • Re: free codings, massiya07
• free softwares and codings, massiya07
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • free softwares and codings, massiya07
• Free softwares and coadings, massiya07
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Free softwares and coadings, massiya07
  • Free Softwares and coadings, massiya07
• MATH AND GEOMETRY VİDEO LESSONS, lütfi zorlu
• Past Propositional Linear Temporal Logic (PLTL), kasaimeh
• Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
  • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, Chris Menzel
    • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
  • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, Pierre Asselin
    • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, Robert E. Beaudoin
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, Robert E. Beaudoin
  • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, berry
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, reasterly
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: Subset of an ordinal equinumerous with some ordinal?, MoeBlee
• Re: Mimansa: the secret of the sacred books, Jan Burse
• Using logic to analyze the events of 9/11, Joe
• Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, Diana
  • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, William Elliot
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, R. Srinivasan
  • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, Frederick Williams
    • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, William Elliot
      • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, R. Srinivasan
  • Re: Cheshire cat, valid deductive argument ?, Diana
• Re: Law of action and inaction, Jan Burse
  • Re: Law of action and inaction, Jan Burse
• Magnetically Motivated, alanejackson
• true or not, kasaimeh
  • Re: true or not, William Elliot
• Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o, R. Srinivasan
  • Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o, R. Srinivasan
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o, R. Srinivasan
    • Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o, MoeBlee
      • Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o, R. Srinivasan
      • Re: Godels incompleteness theorem was not just about a version o, MoeBlee
• Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Charlie-Boo
  • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., herbzet
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Charlie-Boo
    • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Newberry
      • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Charlie-Boo
      • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Newberry
  • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Charlie-Boo
  • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Charlie-Boo
    • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Jan Burse
      • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., jesko
  • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., Charlie-Boo
  • Re: The fallacy of strengthened liar's paradox., jesko
• When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
  • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
    • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, berry
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, Jesse F. Hughes
      • Message not available
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Message not available
      • Message not available
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, Jesse F. Hughes
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, Jesse F. Hughes
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, Jesse F. Hughes
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, MoeBlee
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, Jesse F. Hughes
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, reasterly
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, Jesse F. Hughes
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
      • Re: When are two reals not equal?, herbzet
• Question about theory of descriptions, Newberry
  • Re: Question about theory of descriptions, G . Frege
    • Re: Question about theory of descriptions, Newberry
      • Re: Question about theory of descriptions, G . Frege
      • Re: Question about theory of descriptions, Newberry
      • Re: Question about theory of descriptions, G . Frege
    • Re: Question about theory of descriptions, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Question about theory of descriptions, G . Frege
• Re: Proven godel used invalid axiom AR thus his ttheorm invalid, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Proven godel used invalid axiom AR thus his ttheorm invalid, elsiemelsi
• Newbie questions about Cohen models for ZF, LordBeotian
  • Re: Newbie questions about Cohen models for ZF, berry
  • Re: Newbie questions about Cohen models for ZF, Aatu Koskensilta
• How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everyth, elsiemelsi
  • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
    • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
  • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, LordBeotian
    • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Formalisation II -- on formal proofs (was: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?), Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, billh04
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Frederick Williams
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, billh04
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, billh04
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Chris Menzel
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, William Hale
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, kleptomaniac666_
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Alan Smaill
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Chris Menzel
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
  • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Chris Menzel
    • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, David C . Ullrich
  • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
    • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Chris Menzel
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, MoeBlee
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Jan Burse
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, herbzet
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, herbzet
      • Re: How do We Know that ZF is the Axiomatization that Proves everything Provable?, Aatu Koskensilta
• Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, elsiemelsi
  • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, David C . Ullrich
      • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, Charlie-Boo
      • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, William Hale
      • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, Charlie-Boo
  • Re: Have They Formalized Even Peano or Hilbert?, jesko
• Mathematicians are bad philosophers, elsiemelsi
  • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, David C . Ullrich
    • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, elsiemelsi
      • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, David C . Ullrich
  • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, Marshall
    • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, elsiemelsi
      • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, Marshall
      • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, elsiemelsi
    • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, elsiemelsi
      • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, Jan Burse
      • Re: Mathematicians are bad philosophers, elsiemelsi
• Axiom of choice is invalid and rubbish, elsiemelsi
  • Re: Axiom of choice is invalid and rubbish, G . Frege
    • Re: Axiom of choice is invalid and rubbish, elsiemelsi
• Godel proved maths is inconsistent-not incomplete, elsiemelsi
• Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Herman Jurjus
    • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Herman Jurjus
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Herman Jurjus
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, herbzet
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, herbzet
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Herman Jurjus
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Gc
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Gc
      • Re: The Skolem paradox destroys the incompleteness of ZFC, Gc
• Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Gödel's system P, Principia Mathematica, and the reducibility axiom, Jan Burse
• Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, Aatu Koskensilta
  • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, Gc
    • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, Aatu Koskensilta
      • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, Gc
      • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, Aatu Koskensilta
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, Aatu Koskensilta
    • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, Gc
  • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, george
    • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, WM
      • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, herbzet
      • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, WM
      • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, MoeBlee
      • Re: Some answers to Aatu Koskensilta, herbzet
• Re: LaTeX and FOL, Zaljohar
  • Re: LaTeX and FOL, G . Frege
    • Re: LaTeX and FOL, Zaljohar
      • Re: LaTeX and FOL, G . Frege
• [FAQ, 06/11/05] Mathematical logic on the web, Boris 'pi' Piwinger
• Re: Toposes and Proper Classes, Michal Przybylek
• Re: FOL vs 2OL, LauLuna
• Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, G . Frege
    • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
    • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, G . Frege
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
      • Re: Heap-Set Theory H-S, Zaljohar
• Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, Jan Burse
  • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, elsiemelsi
    • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, Jan Burse
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, elsiemelsi
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, Jan Burse
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, elsiemelsi
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, Jan Burse
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, elsiemelsi
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, elsiemelsi
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, Jan Burse
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, elsiemelsi
      • Re: Jan Burse gives support that godels use of impredicative s, elsiemelsi

• Windows
• Science
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint

sci.tech-archive.net  > Archive  > sci.logic  > 2008-02