sci.logic (date)
September 24, 2005
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Jim Spriggs, 19:46
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Peter_Smith, 19:36
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Peter_Smith, 19:33
- Re: :: semantic realisation in constructivism ::, galathaea, 17:39
- Cubic SAT solvers, Shel L., 15:31
- Re: :: semantic realisation in constructivism ::, Keith Ramsay, 14:45
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Jim Spriggs, 14:44
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:41
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:18
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Jim Spriggs, 14:07
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Jim Spriggs, 14:04
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Kazimierz Kurz, 11:58
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 10:25
- Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 10:21
September 23, 2005
- What does "Infinity" really mean?, The Ghost In The Machine, 20:00
- Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 18:19
- Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 18:16
- Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 16:03
- Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:30
- Re: Topology of proof, Tom, 10:53
- Re: Topology of proof, galathaea, 00:52
September 22, 2005
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Daryl McCullough, 16:26
- Re: Topology of proof, galathaea, 15:42
- Re: math formula that measures how much and when our government can go in debt Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, Lantern, 15:07
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C. Ullrich, 13:49
- Topology of proof, Tom, 09:57
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Aatu Koskensilta, 08:51
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 08:05
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 08:02
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 08:00
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Keith Ramsay, 04:31
September 21, 2005
- Re: math formula that measures how much and when our government can go in debt Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, Les Cargill, 21:37
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Ross A. Finlayson, 21:16
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Jim Spriggs, 16:34
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 15:53
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 15:50
- Re: math formula that measures how much and when our government can go in debt Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, William F Hummel, 14:40
- Re: math formula that measures how much and when our government can go in debt Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, Lantern, 14:34
- Goedel's undecidable G, LordBeotian, 14:32
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Aatu Koskensilta, 06:11
- Re: math formula that measures how much and when our government can go in debt Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, Jeremy Boden, 06:01
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Aatu Koskensilta, 05:54
- Re: math formula that measures how much and when our government can go in debt Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, Ron Peterson, 00:36
September 20, 2005
- Re: math formula that measures how much and when our government can go in debt Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, Jeremy Boden, 18:51
- Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, Timothy, 16:51
- Re: math formula that measures how much and when our government can go in debt Re: quiz question for graduate students of math, Lantern, 16:20
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Ross A. Finlayson, 14:19
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', George Dance, 09:45
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Aatu Koskensilta, 00:26
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Aatu Koskensilta, 00:25
September 14, 2005
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Herman Rubin, 14:45
- Re: Russell, the set, Owen, 13:40
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 13:23
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 13:18
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 12:58
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Herman Rubin, 12:18
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 12:03
- Re: a simple derivation, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 11:26
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 10:54
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 10:52
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 09:05
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 08:43
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 08:40
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 07:10
- Re: a simple derivation, George Dance, 06:59
- Re: a simple derivation, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 06:13
- Re: Language semantics is metalanguage syntax?, Barb Knox, 06:10
- Re: a simple derivation, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:50
- Language semantics is metalanguage syntax?, andrewspencers, 05:48
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, David Kastrup, 04:58
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Torkel Franzen, 04:24
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Han de Bruijn, 04:21
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Han de Bruijn, 04:18
- Russell, the set, Ross A. Finlayson, 01:34
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Bill Dubuque, 00:50
- Re: Would you accept this arithmetic thesis?, Barb Knox, 00:24
- Would you accept this arithmetic thesis?, Nam Nguyen, 00:07
September 13, 2005
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Dik T. Winter, 22:37
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, adamgolding, 22:33
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 22:06
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 22:06
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 21:01
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, |-|erc, 20:19
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Ross A. Finlayson, 20:01
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Dik T. Winter, 19:49
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 19:44
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Chris Menzel, 18:54
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, |-|erc, 18:46
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Robert Low, 18:14
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 18:04
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 16:47
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 16:46
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Torkel Franzen, 16:32
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, Proginoskes, 16:31
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Torkel Franzen, 16:30
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 16:27
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, david petry, 16:27
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Torkel Franzen, 16:26
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', george, 16:16
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Torkel Franzen, 16:13
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 16:09
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Torkel Franzen, 16:04
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 16:02
- Re: Existence and presupposition, William of Ockham, 15:58
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 15:09
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 14:53
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Torkel Franzen, 14:39
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, david petry, 14:36
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Torkel Franzen, 14:26
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 14:16
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, MoeBlee, 14:11
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 14:11
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 14:05
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 14:01
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 13:44
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 13:30
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 13:07
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 13:02
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 12:59
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 12:49
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, MoeBlee, 12:38
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, MoeBlee, 12:30
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 11:54
- Re: a simple derivation, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 11:26
- Re: a simple derivation, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 11:23
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 10:59
- Re: a simple derivation, fractal97, 10:53
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, |-|erc, 10:48
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Jonathan Hoyle, 10:16
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Herman Jurjus, 08:33
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Torkel Franzen, 07:34
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Timothy Murphy, 07:27
- Re: a simple derivation, Robert Low, 03:27
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Herman Jurjus, 01:49
September 12, 2005
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, Dik T. Winter, 19:41
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, Dik T. Winter, 19:38
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Owen, 19:18
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 18:47
- Re: a simple derivation, Jim Spriggs, 18:45
- a simple derivation, fractal97, 18:24
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 16:29
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 16:23
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 15:55
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, george, 15:37
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, george, 15:17
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, george, 15:11
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 15:06
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 15:03
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, david petry, 14:43
- Re: Weyl's quote on set theory, Jonathan Hoyle, 14:25
- Weyl's quote on set theory, david petry, 14:15
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, G. A. Edgar, 13:45
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, MoeBlee, 13:22
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, MoeBlee, 13:20
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, MoeBlee, 13:12
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, MoeBlee, 13:07
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 07:08
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Herman Jurjus, 03:39
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Barb Knox, 02:34
September 11, 2005
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ross A. Finlayson, 21:14
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ken Quirici, 20:23
- Re: Basic Axioms, George Dance, 19:20
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ross A. Finlayson, 19:18
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, Bill Dubuque, 18:39
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 16:19
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 16:15
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 14:59
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 14:34
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 14:32
- Re: Existence and presupposition, William of Ockham, 14:28
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, george, 11:58
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, george, 11:56
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 11:29
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 08:00
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 07:58
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, G. A. Edgar, 05:32
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Keith Ramsay, 05:30
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, adamgolding, 03:07
- Re: Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, Proginoskes, 01:20
September 10, 2005
- Prove unique factorization without using negative integers?, MoeBlee, 23:34
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 22:15
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Daryl McCullough, 22:05
- Re: Basic Axioms, George Dance, 20:57
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', david petry, 18:22
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', david petry, 18:12
- Re: Basic Axioms, Jim Spriggs, 14:14
- Re: Existence and presupposition, William of Ockham, 13:16
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 13:14
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 12:56
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 12:42
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 12:29
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 12:12
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', george, 11:49
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 11:32
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ken Quirici, 11:20
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Daryl McCullough, 10:33
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 10:15
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 09:57
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 09:51
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 09:48
- Re: Non-standard models of ZF, Torkel Franzen, 09:45
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, William of Ockham, 09:43
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 09:39
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 09:14
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 09:12
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Daryl McCullough, 08:49
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Daryl McCullough, 08:44
- Non-standard models of ZF, LordBeotian, 08:23
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Torkel Franzen, 04:10
- Re: Existence and presupposition, William of Ockham, 03:55
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 03:50
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ross A. Finlayson, 00:47
September 09, 2005
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ken Quirici, 23:33
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Ross A. Finlayson, 22:32
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Daryl McCullough, 19:31
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, slaterbh, 18:47
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, adamgolding, 18:16
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 18:11
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 18:06
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', george, 17:45
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 17:27
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 17:22
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, george, 17:07
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, george, 16:35
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, george, 16:03
- Re: Axiomatic Proof Help, Torkel Franzen, 14:12
- Re: Axiomatic Proof Help, George Dance, 13:53
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation - A More Systematic Approach, George Dance, 13:40
- Re: Basic Axioms, Jim Spriggs, 13:30
- Re: Basic Axioms, George Dance, 13:21
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 12:52
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 11:39
- Re: Basic Axioms, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 11:16
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Ross A. Finlayson, 10:40
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 10:38
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 09:54
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Daryl McCullough, 08:52
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Daryl McCullough, 07:01
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, , 04:30
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Herman Jurjus, 04:06
- Skolem's 'Paradox', Bill Taylor, 02:31
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', William Elliot, 02:30
- Re: Updated unexpected hanging paradox bibliography, Arthur J. O'Dwyer, 00:34
September 08, 2005
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ross A. Finlayson, 23:54
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Ross A. Finlayson, 23:45
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ken Quirici, 23:39
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, slaterbh, 23:20
- Re: Basic Axioms, Acme Diagnostics, 17:38
- Re: Existence and presupposition, Paul Holbach, 17:37
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 17:22
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 16:08
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation - A More Systematic Approach, Jim Spriggs, 16:01
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation - A More Systematic Approach, Jim Spriggs, 15:58
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation - A More Systematic Approach, Jim Spriggs, 15:53
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Torkel Franzen, 15:48
- Skolem's 'Paradox', William of Ockham, 15:46
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Peter_Smith, 15:41
- Re: Existence and presupposition, William of Ockham, 15:05
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 12:56
- Re: Existence and presupposition, Paul Holbach, 12:47
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Owen, 12:45
- Re: Basic Axioms, George Dance, 12:11
- Re: Existence and presupposition, Paul Holbach, 11:57
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Owen, 11:55
- Re: Basic Axioms, George Dance, 11:42
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 11:14
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Owen, 11:13
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 08:20
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Lee Rudolph, 07:21
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Peter_Smith, 06:55
- Re: Axoimatic Proof Help, mitch, 06:01
- Re: Axiomatic Proof Help, mitch, 05:13
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 04:37
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Robert Low, 04:10
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Robert Low, 04:07
- Re: provably unprovable?, Keith Ramsay, 02:48
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation - A More Systematic Approach, futurist, 02:44
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation - A More Systematic Approach, futurist, 02:41
- Re: LaTeX (not just) for Logicians, Chris Menzel, 01:51
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation - A More Systematic Approach, Torkel Franzen, 01:10
- A Brief Note on Notation - A More Systematic Approach, futurist, 01:05
September 07, 2005
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 23:39
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Torkel Franzen, 23:34
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 22:48
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 22:46
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 22:35
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 22:32
- Re: Basic Axioms, george, 22:26
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 22:22
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 22:21
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 21:59
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 21:57
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, G . Frege, 21:54
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 21:45
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, G . Frege, 21:45
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, futurist, 21:42
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, george, 21:37
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, G . Frege, 21:36
- Re: Axiomatic Proof Help, G . Frege, 21:21
- Re: unconventional A and E, Jeffrey Ketland, 19:05
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, jirka, 17:53
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Peter_Smith, 17:49
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 16:33
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Robert Low, 16:26
- Re: Existence and presupposition, William of Ockham, 15:58
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 15:09
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 15:00
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Chris Menzel, 14:25
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Peter_Smith, 14:17
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 14:15
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 14:03
- Re: Basic Axioms, George Dance, 13:54
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 13:36
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, Jim Spriggs, 12:57
- Re: A Brief Note on Notation, adamgolding, 12:41
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, adamgolding, 12:20
- Re: A proof for !(p^q) |- !p v !q, Paul Holbach, 12:16
- Re: Axoimatic Proof Help, Torkel Franzen, 11:33
- Axoimatic Proof Help, mitch, 11:15
- Re: Basic Axioms, Jim Spriggs, 10:26
- Re: Basic Axioms, Jim Spriggs, 10:04
- Re: A Note on Notation, George Dance, 09:39
- A Brief Note on Notation, George Dance, 09:38
- A Note on Notation, George Dance, 09:34
- Basic Axioms, George Dance, 09:32
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 08:35
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 08:30
- Re: :: inaccessibility via barb ::, Torkel Franzen, 08:23
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 07:46
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Daryl McCullough, 07:09
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Daryl McCullough, 07:06
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Herman Jurjus, 06:19
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Robert Low, 03:46
- Re: There can be no objective justification for our beliefs., Peter_Smith, 03:37
September 06, 2005
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 23:04
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 21:15
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), George Dance, 12:24
- Re: A proof for !(p^q) |- !p v !q, George Dance, 12:19
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Darko Aleksic, 11:59
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Owen, 11:42
- Re: "These statements are false", George Dance, 10:09
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability, George Dance, 10:03
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), George Dance, 09:43
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), George Dance, 09:39
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Robert Low, 09:23
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 08:32
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 07:54
September 05, 2005
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ross A. Finlayson, 23:31
- Re: A proof for !(p^q) |- !p v !q, Barb Knox, 23:14
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 21:34
- Re: A proof for !(p^q) |- !p v !q, William Elliot, 21:09
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability, george, 17:15
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 16:59
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 16:49
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Ross A. Finlayson, 15:31
- Re: Existence and presupposition, William of Ockham, 14:49
- Re: unconventional A and E, Jim Spriggs, 14:48
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, William of Ockham, 14:47
- Re: provably unprovable?, Michael De, 14:24
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability, George Dance, 14:11
- Re: A proof for !(p^q) |- !p v !q, George Dance, 13:50
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Chris Menzel, 13:42
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), 1Z, 11:15
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), 1Z, 11:09
- unconventional A and E, Allan Adler, 10:40
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Daryl McCullough, 09:15
- Re: A proof for !(p^q) |- !p v !q, Torkel Franzen, 08:34
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:21
- A proof for !(p^q) |- !p v !q, Newbie, 08:19
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Torkel Franzen, 06:45
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, futurist, 06:30
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Herman Jurjus, 06:10
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, futurist, 04:33
- Re: provably unprovable?, Keith Ramsay, 04:10
- Re: Confused about Intuitionistic provability, Keith Ramsay, 04:05
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Torkel Franzen, 04:02
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, futurist, 03:51
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, futurist, 03:48
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, futurist, 03:42
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Herman Jurjus, 03:24
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Herman Jurjus, 02:52
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Herman Jurjus, 02:50
September 04, 2005
- Re: *# algebraic constructivism #*, Torkel Franzen, 22:15
- *# algebraic constructivism #*, galathaea, 21:48
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, slaterbh, 20:52
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Jesse F. Hughes, 17:31
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Robert Low, 17:19
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Robert Low, 17:16
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, david petry, 17:11
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), David Kastrup, 17:08
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), david petry, 17:03
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), david petry, 17:01
- Re: Existence and presupposition, G . Frege, 17:00
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), david petry, 16:59
- Re: Existence and presupposition, G . Frege, 16:50
- Re: Existence and presupposition, G . Frege, 16:34
- Re: Existence and presupposition, Paul Holbach, 16:22
- Re: Existence and presupposition, Paul Holbach, 16:01
- Re: Existence and presupposition, george, 14:52
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, george, 14:29
- Re: Non-standard models of PA, george, 14:12
- Re: provably unprovable?, Michael De, 13:51
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Ross A. Finlayson, 13:36
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Jim Spriggs, 09:54
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 08:53
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Torkel Franzen, 06:18
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 06:16
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Torkel Franzen, 05:41
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 05:36
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, William of Ockham, 05:29
- Re: provably unprovable?, Torkel Franzen, 05:19
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, William of Ockham, 05:18
- Re: provably unprovable?, gsax, 05:13
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 02:13
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Torkel Franzen, 00:59
- Re: Non-standard models of PA, Keith Ramsay, 00:49
September 03, 2005
- Re: provably unprovable?, george, 18:14
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Jesse F. Hughes, 17:55
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Daryl McCullough, 17:52
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 17:34
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Robert Low, 17:29
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), david petry, 17:01
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), david petry, 16:52
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), david petry, 16:44
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, david petry, 16:39
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 16:19
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Jim Spriggs, 16:07
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), William Elliot, 16:06
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Torkel Franzen, 15:55
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 15:53
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, Robert Low, 15:50
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 15:48
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, William of Ockham, 15:16
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, William of Ockham, 15:11
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Neil W Rickert, 14:20
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Ken Quirici, 13:50
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, george, 11:23
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, David C . Ullrich, 11:12
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Acme Diagnostics, 11:12
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), David C . Ullrich, 10:48
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), David C . Ullrich, 10:41
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?, A.T., 10:38
- Re: Anti-diagonalist page, george, 10:25
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Daryl McCullough, 10:04
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Jesse F. Hughes, 08:24
- Anti-diagonalist page, William of Ockham, 07:52
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), William of Ockham, 07:16
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), William of Ockham, 07:10
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Herman Jurjus, 06:36
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Herman Jurjus, 06:29
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Peter_Smith, 05:58
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Michael Gray, 05:30
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, William of Ockham, 05:28
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Michael Gray, 05:27
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Torkel Franzen, 05:22
- Re: provably unprovable?, Robert Low, 05:19
- provably unprovable?, gsax, 05:15
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 04:28
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Torkel Franzen, 03:05
- Visit 'We the Thinking', nathanhawking, 02:31
- Visit 'We the Thinking', nathanhawking, 02:27
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, george, 00:47
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, george, 00:43
- Re: Non-standard models of PA, george, 00:25
- Re: Non-standard models of PA, Keith Ramsay, 00:07
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, The Ghost In The Machine, 00:00
September 02, 2005
- Re: Non-standard models of PA, Keith Ramsay, 23:57
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, The Ghost In The Machine, 23:00
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), William Elliot, 21:37
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), William Elliot, 21:32
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Ken Quirici, 17:55
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Ken Quirici, 17:47
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 16:59
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, William of Ockham, 16:48
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), William of Ockham, 16:43
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, William of Ockham, 16:42
- Re: Constructive Math query., david petry, 16:06
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Ken Quirici, 16:05
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Torkel Franzen, 15:54
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Torkel Franzen, 15:50
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, david petry, 15:28
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Owen, 15:28
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, david petry, 15:23
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Chris Menzel, 15:05
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 14:33
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 14:25
- cancelling postings Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Robert Low, 14:14
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 14:11
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 14:02
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 14:01
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 13:58
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Torkel Franzen, 13:52
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 13:47
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Colin, 13:42
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Robert J. Kolker, 13:21
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Ken Quirici, 13:17
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), 1Z, 11:42
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Chris Menzel, 11:24
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Owen, 10:44
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Robert J. Kolker, 10:34
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Robert J. Kolker, 10:33
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Owen, 10:19
- Re: Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), Peter_Smith, 10:00
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Lee Rudolph, 09:58
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Lee Rudolph, 09:40
- Proof of p ^ !q |- !(p v q), JBL, 09:25
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), berry, 09:18
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), 1Z, 08:31
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), 1Z, 08:29
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Chris Menzel, 05:05
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Jesse F. Hughes, 04:13
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 03:33
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Herman Jurjus, 03:28
- Re: ?? truth as provability ??, Torkel Franzen, 03:27
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), berry, 03:10
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 03:02
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Herman Jurjus, 02:54
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Peter Webb, 02:50
- reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, William Elliot, 02:45
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Chris Menzel, 02:28
- Re: Constructive Math query., Keith Ramsay, 02:22
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, Ross A. Finlayson, 00:32
- Re: Cantor's Diagonal Argument, The Ghost In The Machine, 00:00
September 01, 2005
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), musil23, 23:13
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Chris Menzel, 20:55
- Re: Constructive Math query., Daryl McCullough, 18:58
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Daryl McCullough, 18:55
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Daryl McCullough, 18:49
- Re: Mathematical creationism (re-post), Proginoskes, 18:34
- Re: Constructive Math query., Barb Knox, 18:32
- A new definition to "Truth" !, caesarjbsquitti, 18:01
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, david petry, 17:48
- Re: Constructive Math query., LordBeotian, 17:48
- Mathematical creationism (re-post), david petry, 17:44
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, david petry, 17:37
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, david petry, 17:27
- Re: Constructive Math query., david petry, 17:12
- Cantor's Diagonal Argument, William of Ockham, 16:57
- Re: ?? truth as provability ??, galathaea, 16:15
- Re: All students either go to a party or work, but not both - predicate logic?, George Dance, 14:02
- Re: The logic troubles of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins (the "Sokal hoax"), Colin, 13:42
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Chris Menzel, 12:53
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Daryl McCullough, 11:59
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Chris Menzel, 10:36
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?, A.T., 10:08
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?, A.T., 09:42
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Lee Rudolph, 08:38
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Daryl McCullough, 07:50
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, Torkel Franzen, 06:02
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, adamgolding, 05:43
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, adamgolding, 05:25
- Re: reductio ad falsum versus reductio ad absurdum, adamgolding, 05:22
- Re: ?? truth as provability ??, Torkel Franzen, 03:22
- Re: ?? truth as provability ??, galathaea, 03:07
- Re: Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Torkel Franzen, 02:30
- Humanistic mathematics: response to David Petry, Bill Taylor, 01:51
- Re: ?? truth as provability ??, Torkel Franzen, 01:22
- Re: ?? truth as provability ??, galathaea, 01:10
August 31, 2005
- Re: ?? truth as provability ??, Torkel Franzen, 23:57
- Re: Non-standard models of PA, Torkel Franzen, 23:48
- Re: All students either go to a party or work, but not both - predicate logic?, David, 22:45
- Re: All students either go to a party or work, but not both - predicate logic?, poopdeville, 22:30
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?, Barb Knox, 22:29
- Re: All students either go to a party or work, but not both - predicate logic?, William Elliot, 20:45
- All students either go to a party or work, but not both - predicate logic?, David, 20:23
- [FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web, Boris 'pi' Piwinger, 20:03
- Re: Non-standard models of PA, george, 19:37
- Re: Non-standard models of PA, george, 19:25
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?, george, 19:16
- Re: .999... = 1, MoeBlee, 17:26
- Re: Confused about Intuitionistic provability, Alan Smaill, 16:23
- Re: ?? truth as provability ??, galathaea, 15:49
- Re: Nonfirstorderizability, William of Ockham, 15:01
- Existence and presupposition, William of Ockham, 14:43
- Re: Constructive Math query., LordBeotian, 11:38
- Re: .999... = 1, Ken Quirici, 10:29
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?, Torkel Franzen, 10:04
- Re: An instance of Russell's paradox?, A.T., 09:32
- Re: Constructive Math query., Daryl McCullough, 08:51
- Constructive Math query., William Elliot, 03:31
- Constructive Math query., Bill Taylor, 01:29
Privacy Policy