sci.logic (date)

sci.logic (date)

[Thread Index] [Top] [All Lists]

October 31, 2005

Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, LordBeotian, 08:48
Re: nonstandard models of PA, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:31
nonstandard models of PA, Rupert, 04:16

October 30, 2005

Re: Functions on a complete lattice: when are the fixed points distinct?, William Elliot, 21:57
Functions on a complete lattice: when are the fixed points distinct?, John Fiskio-Lasseter, 18:07
Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Dan Christensen, 15:21
Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Dan Christensen, 15:04
Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:47
Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Dan Christensen, 14:38
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Virgil, 13:24
Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), Owen, 10:13
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Jim Spriggs, 09:57
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., George Dance, 05:29
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., George Dance, 05:19
Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, yawnmoth, 03:08
Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Torkel Franzen, 01:23
Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, William Elliot, 01:19

October 29, 2005

Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., George Dance, 20:20
Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), David C . Ullrich, 14:57
Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), Mike Carroll, 12:59
Re: =, Owen, 09:40
Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), David C . Ullrich, 08:37
Re: Poem on halting problem, William Elliot, 07:18
Poem on halting problem, yarden . katz, 02:56

October 28, 2005

Re: logic on the web, Jim Spriggs, 21:05
Re: logic on the web, John Velman, 19:53
Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), Mike Carroll, 19:41

October 23, 2005

Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 11:08
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:17
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 09:39
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 09:01
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 08:37
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 08:27
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 08:07
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 07:33
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 07:29
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 07:25
Re: Question on upwards LST, Torkel Franzen, 05:21
Re: Question on upwards LST, Robert Low, 05:05
Question on upwards LST, Barb Knox, 04:53

October 22, 2005

Worked Examples, Robert Thornley, 22:32
Re: Axioms v. definitions., |-|erc, 20:46
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 20:10
Re: Routley's "noneism", Paul Holbach, 19:43
Re: Routley's "noneism", examachine, 18:02
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 15:30
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 13:38
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 12:54
Re: =, george, 12:13
Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, george, 11:47
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, george, 11:33
Re: Axioms v. definitions., george, 11:24
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 11:21
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 10:57
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 10:44
Re: Routley's "noneism", Paul Holbach, 10:27
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 10:06
Routley's "noneism", Paul Holbach, 10:02
Re: Axioms v. definitions., Keith Ramsay, 02:38
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Keith Ramsay, 02:27
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 00:17

October 21, 2005

Axioms v. definitions., Jim Spriggs, 17:31
Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, poopdeville, 14:04
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Daryl McCullough, 10:29
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Barb Knox, 09:54
Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Torkel Franzen, 09:42
Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Herman Jurjus, 09:33
Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, Arturo Magidin, 08:37
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, David C . Ullrich, 06:52
PUNKT, ksRobak, Tomek Wilmowski i SEDNO FILOZOFII, Tom, 06:49
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, David C . Ullrich, 06:38
Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, William Elliot, 06:28
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 05:03
Re: =, Owen, 04:30
Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, poopdeville, 03:31
Re: question about PRA, Keith Ramsay, 00:45

October 20, 2005

Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, Arturo Magidin, 23:26
Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, William Elliot, 22:56
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 22:44
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 22:36
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Proginoskes, 21:48
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 21:35
Re: =, G . Frege, 21:04
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 20:54
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 20:47
Re: =, Jim Spriggs, 20:38
well-ordered sets and inductive sets, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 19:15
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Robert Low, 18:52
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Barb Knox, 18:22
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Jim Spriggs, 18:00
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Owen, 17:25
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 17:14
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 16:43
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 16:41
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 16:38
Re: =, G . Frege, 16:34
Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", abo, 15:37
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz, 15:27
Re: =, Owen, 14:15
Re: =, H. Enderton, 13:57
Re: =, Owen, 13:40
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 07:12
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 07:05
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 06:39
Re: =, G . Frege, 05:38
Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", abo, 04:30
Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 02:46
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 02:43
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Keith Ramsay, 01:01
Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", Mike Carroll, 00:42
Re: question about PRA, Keith Ramsay, 00:41

October 19, 2005

Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21, Ross A. Finlayson, 23:24
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 22:18
Re: =, Dan Christensen, 21:54
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 21:43
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 21:33
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 21:25
=, Charlie-Boo, 20:57
Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", Jim Spriggs, 18:50
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 18:35
Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", Mike Carroll, 18:19
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 08:05
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 08:04
Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Lee Rudolph, 06:14
Re: Impredicative ordinal, Keith Ramsay, 04:57
Re: string matching as a calculus, Jean-Yves Moyen, 04:52
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 04:15
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 04:09
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 03:58
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 03:43
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 02:28
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 02:20
string matching as a calculus, |-|erc, 02:03
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 01:17

October 18, 2005

Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Torkel Franzen, 22:19
Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Rupert, 22:09
Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, Owen, 21:11
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Acme Diagnostics, 20:36
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 20:22
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 19:22
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Jim Spriggs, 17:17
Re: Learning Type Theory in Church, Jim Spriggs, 17:12
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, andrewspencers, 16:26
Re: Learning Type Theory in Church, andrewspencers, 15:37
Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, Chris Menzel, 14:27
Re: THE GODEL Truth, H. Enderton, 13:57
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 10:50
Re: Yessenin-Volpin, abo, 10:40
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 08:52
Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, andrewspencers, 07:25
Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, andrewspencers, 07:02
Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, andrewspencers, 06:50
Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Torkel Franzen, 01:09
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 00:59
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 00:31
Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, Michael De, 00:26
Re: Conditional elimination, Michael De, 00:10

October 17, 2005

Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, William Elliot, 23:50
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, Dan Christensen, 23:42
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 23:21
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 22:47
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 22:14
Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 21:18
Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, andrewspencers, 20:29
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 19:54
Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 17:43
Re: Conditional elimination, G . Frege, 17:16
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 17:15
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 17:12
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 17:10
Yessenin-Volpin, Rupert, 17:09
Re: Conditional elimination, Roberto Vescarelli, 16:19
Conditional elimination, Michael De, 13:43
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, William Hughes, 13:03
Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 12:50
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Mark lman, 12:11
Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 11:36
Re: Skolem Again, Rupert, 09:26
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 09:17
Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 09:14
Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 08:42
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 08:30
Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 07:18
Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 07:05
Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 06:14
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 06:01
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 05:57
Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 05:12
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 05:06
Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 05:05
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 02:27
Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 00:23
Impredicative ordinal, Bill Taylor, 00:19

October 16, 2005

First order Induction axioms, Bill Taylor, 23:48
First order Induction axioms, Bill Taylor, 23:48
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 23:30
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Proginoskes, 23:10
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Barb Knox, 23:10
question about PRA, Rupert, 22:58
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 22:55
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 22:49
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Aatu Koskensilta, 22:03
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 21:55
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 20:42
Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 20:38
Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 20:35
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 20:33
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 19:52
Re: An improved Godel numbering system, |-|erc, 19:08
Re: THE GODEL Truth, H. Enderton, 18:20
Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21, H. Enderton, 18:16
Re: Skolem Again, abo, 15:43
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 15:42
Re: Parsons and the Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 15:38
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 15:36
Re: Skolem Again, abo, 15:34
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 14:41
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 13:12
Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 12:41
Re: THE GODEL Truth, LordBeotian, 12:37
Re: Parsons and the Square of Opposition, George Dance, 10:56
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 09:36
Re: Skolem Again, abo, 08:24
Re: Skolem Again, Torkel Franzen, 07:38
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 06:53
Re: Skolem Again, Torkel Franzen, 06:10
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 05:59
Re: Skolem Again, Torkel Franzen, 05:52
Parsons and the Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 05:51
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 05:26
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 05:20
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 05:14
Re: First order Induction axioms, Torkel Franzen, 04:28
First order Induction axioms, LordBeotian, 04:20
Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary], |-|erc, 03:22
An improved Godel numbering system, |-|erc, 02:33
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 02:12
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 01:09

October 15, 2005

Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 20:50
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 19:39
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Barb Knox, 19:32
Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary], Torkel Franzen, 15:31
Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary], george, 15:26
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, george, 15:14
Re: Skolem Again, george, 12:18
Re: Skolem Again, george, 12:12
The other Principle of Abstraction, andrewspencers, 10:49
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 10:44
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 10:38
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, Torkel Franzen, 10:23
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 08:54
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, Torkel Franzen, 08:22
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 08:20
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 07:47
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 07:46
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, mitch, 06:58
Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 04:10
Re: An axoimatic proof., Dan Christensen, 02:10

October 14, 2005

Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 20:53
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 20:46
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 20:35
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 20:26
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 20:25
Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21, Ross A. Finlayson, 20:18
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 19:35
UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21, H. Enderton, 17:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 15:15
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, mitch, 14:59
Re: Skolem Again, abo, 14:34
Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 13:42
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 13:25
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Chris Menzel, 12:16
Proof of Peirce's law, mitch, 08:34
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 06:39
Re: Impredicative ordinal, Rupert, 05:10
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 04:17
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 02:12
Impredicative ordinal, Bill Taylor, 01:54
Re: COMMON SENSE, Rupert, 01:26
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 00:24

October 13, 2005

Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 20:46
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 20:05
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Mark-T, 18:43
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 18:37
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 17:25
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 17:25
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 17:25
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 13:58
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, george, 13:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 13:40
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 13:11
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 12:58
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 12:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 12:35
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 12:28
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 12:23
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 12:12
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, timvaz_059, 12:03
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 11:46
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Daryl McCullough, 11:39
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 11:33
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 11:23
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 11:16
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:06
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 10:52
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 10:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 10:19
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 10:01
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 09:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 09:48
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 09:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 09:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 09:40
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 09:39
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 09:32
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 09:18
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 09:16
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 09:06
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 09:00
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 08:58
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 08:51
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 08:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 08:48
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 08:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 08:36
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:28
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 08:09
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:06
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 08:04
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 06:26
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 05:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 04:19
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 04:07
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 04:02
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Mark-T, 03:48
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 03:36
Re: COMMON SENSE, Rupert, 03:34
Re: Impredicative ordinal, Rupert, 03:29
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Mark-T, 03:28
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 03:22
Re: COMMON SENSE, |-|erc, 03:12
Re: Impredicative ordinal, Keith Ramsay, 03:07
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 03:01
Re: COMMON SENSE, David Bernier, 02:33
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 02:22
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 02:20
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 02:16
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 02:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Chris Menzel, 01:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 01:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 01:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 01:11
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 01:09
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 00:41
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 00:36
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 00:16
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Chris Menzel, 00:12

October 12, 2005

Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 22:09
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Daryl McCullough, 21:37
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 21:24
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 20:39
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 20:06
i-C&P, an International Conference -second call, Colin . Schmidt, 20:04
Tarski commentators' definitions of "model", andrewspencers, 19:56
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 19:48
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 19:36
An urgent message for Archimedes Plutonium, Ian St. John, 19:06
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 19:05
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 18:59
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 18:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Daryl McCullough, 18:16
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 18:05
COMMON SENSE, |-|erc, 16:56
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 16:53
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 16:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 16:49
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 16:44
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 16:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 16:37
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 16:34
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 15:45
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 15:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 15:18
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 15:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:07
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 14:44
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 14:39
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 14:31
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 14:22
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 14:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 13:54
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 13:24
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 13:19
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 13:03
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 13:02
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 12:48
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 12:37
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 12:23
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 12:05
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 11:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 11:00
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 10:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 10:50
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 08:47
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 08:22
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 08:22
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 07:33
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 07:31
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 07:29
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 07:12
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 07:02
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 06:56
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 06:47
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 06:40
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 06:06
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 06:01
Proof o diagonalization lemma, LordBeotian, 05:50
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 05:35
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 04:16
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 04:02
Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, abo, 01:11
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 00:55
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 00:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 00:24
Re: Impredicative ordinal, Rupert, 00:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 00:19
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 00:03

October 11, 2005

Re: COMMON SENSE, Rupert, 23:57
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 23:54
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 23:43
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 23:33
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 23:31
Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, |-|erc, 23:22
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 23:20
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 23:16
Impredicative ordinal, Bill Taylor, 21:14
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 20:58
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 20:07
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 19:32
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 19:24
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 19:09
Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, david petry, 18:46
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 18:34
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 18:24
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 18:17
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 18:08
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 17:53
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 17:19
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 17:01
Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, Jim Spriggs, 16:39
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 16:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 16:23
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 16:03
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 16:02
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:58
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:45
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:35
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 15:31
Re: Skolem Again, abo, 15:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Ralph Hartley, 15:16
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 14:39
Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 14:39
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 14:37
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 14:33
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 14:29
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 14:02
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 14:02
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 13:47
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 13:03
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 12:52
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 11:59
Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 11:45
Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 11:39
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 11:25
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 09:19
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 08:34
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 08:17
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 08:11
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 08:04
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 07:56
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 06:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 06:46
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 06:42
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 06:37
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 05:56
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 05:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:37
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 05:37
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 05:30
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 05:24
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:16
Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 04:25
Re: An axoimatic proof., Torkel Franzen, 04:04
Re: An axoimatic proof., George Dance, 03:58
Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 03:47
Re: An axoimatic proof., Torkel Franzen, 03:35
Re: An axoimatic proof., George Dance, 03:31
Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, Torkel Franzen, 03:30
Re: An axoimatic proof., George Dance, 03:24
Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 03:23
Re: An axoimatic proof., mitch, 03:16
Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, LordBeotian, 03:14
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 03:12
Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, Torkel Franzen, 03:10
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 03:07
Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, LordBeotian, 02:49
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 02:33
Re: An axoimatic proof., Torkel Franzen, 02:18
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 01:34
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 01:16
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 01:10
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Joe Hendrix, 00:21

October 10, 2005

Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 22:11
Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 21:27
Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 21:12
Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 21:03
Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 20:54
Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 20:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 19:36
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 19:25
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 19:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 19:15
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 19:11
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 19:05
Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 19:04
Re: STEP 5: G has a proof, Rupert, 19:00
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 18:33
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Alan Smaill, 18:22
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 18:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 17:50
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 17:20
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 17:04
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 16:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 16:18
Re: Skolem Again, abo, 16:12
----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 16:08
-------- THE GODEL PROOF YOU WERE NOT MEANT TO SEE ----------, |-|erc, 16:08
STEP 1: G = not ( G has a proof ), |-|erc, 16:08
STEP 2: CASE FALSE - G has a proof - CONTRADICTION, |-|erc, 16:07
STEP 4: G does not have a proof IS_EQUIVALENT_TO G, |-|erc, 16:07
STEP 5: G has a proof, |-|erc, 16:07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 16:06
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 16:03
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:57
Re: GODEL : Here's a proven truth G, maybe there's unproven ones?, |-|erc, 15:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 15:52
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 15:45
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 15:44
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 15:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:34
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 15:13
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 15:04
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 14:46
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 14:41
Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 14:38
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jim Spriggs, 14:14
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 14:04
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 14:03
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 13:58
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 13:49
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 13:42
Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, Jim Spriggs, 13:31
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 13:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 13:24
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 13:17
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 13:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 12:50
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 12:49
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 12:42
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 12:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 12:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 12:26
Re: THIS SENTENCE IS NOT e WELL_FORMED_TRUE_SENTENCES, |-|erc, 12:18
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 12:14
Re: An axoimatic proof., Jim Spriggs, 12:02
Re: An axoimatic proof., Jim Spriggs, 12:01
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 11:23
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 11:10
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 10:47
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 10:44
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., H. J. Sander Bruggink, 10:37
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 10:14
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 10:09
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:05
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 10:00
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 09:55
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:39
Re: STEP 3: G does not have a proof, Richard Tobin, 09:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Robert Low, 09:32
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 09:30
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Dave Seaman, 09:24
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 09:09
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 08:07
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 07:57
Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 07:41
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:12
Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, Jean-Yves . Moyen, 07:09
Re: An axoimatic proof., Roberto Vescarelli, 06:43
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 06:41
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 06:41
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 06:39
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 06:31
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 06:29
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 06:26
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 06:23
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 06:21
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 06:20
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 06:19
An axoimatic proof., mitch, 05:47
BEWARE OF LINDA WEST (925) 876-7441 of CHIPMAN UNITED VAN LINES/, teckard, 02:45
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 02:33
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 01:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 01:42
Re: THIS SENTENCE IS NOT e WELL_FORMED_TRUE_SENTENCES, Rupert, 01:40
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 01:35
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 00:21

October 09, 2005

Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, Joubin Houshyar, 23:52
What are the Adics?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 22:31
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 22:14
Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, |-|erc, 21:55
Re: COMMON SENSE, |-|erc, 21:45
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 20:37
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 20:28
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 18:49
THIS SENTENCE IS NOT e WELL_FORMED_TRUE_SENTENCES, |-|erc, 18:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 18:16
GODEL : Here's a proven truth G, maybe there's unproven ones?, |-|erc, 18:01
FORMALISM = RIGOROUS, |-|erc, 17:56
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 17:52
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 17:50
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 17:47
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 17:41
Re: THE GODEL LIE, |-|erc, 17:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 17:35
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 17:11
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 17:08
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 17:05
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 16:59
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 16:53
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 16:27
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 15:40
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 15:21
Re: Skolem Again, george, 15:03
Re: THIS SENTENCE IS NOT e WELL_FORMED_TRUE_SENTENCES, Joubin Houshyar, 14:58
Re: Skolem Again, george, 14:56
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 14:54
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 14:31
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 14:29
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 14:01
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 13:35
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 12:54
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 12:33
Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 12:14
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 12:04
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 11:54
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 11:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 11:09
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 11:02
Re: GODEL : Here's a proven truth G, maybe there's unproven ones?, Jim Spriggs, 10:45
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 09:53
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 09:32
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 09:00
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 08:35
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 07:40
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 07:36
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:21
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 07:11
Re: Skolem Again, Lee Rudolph, 06:29
Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 04:22
Re: Skolem Again, abo, 04:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 03:50
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 02:11
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 01:41

October 08, 2005

Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 23:38
Re: THE GODEL LIE, |-|erc, 23:30
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 22:44
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 22:42
Re: Skolem Again, berry, 19:55
Re: Skolem Again, Rupert, 19:08
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 18:18
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Rupert, 17:35
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 17:29
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 17:12
Re: Skolem Again, abo, 16:50
Re: THE HALT LIE, uglukapushdug, 16:46
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 16:08
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 16:03
Re: THE HALT LIE, |-|erc, 15:59
Re: THE CANTOR LIE, |-|erc, 15:56
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 15:14
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Chris Menzel, 15:12
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 15:10
Re: Please Explain, John Velman, 15:04
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, George Dance, 14:51
Re: Skolem Again, george, 14:00
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, The Ghost In The Machine, 14:00
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 13:38
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., LordBeotian, 13:30
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 13:30
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 13:27
Re: Please Explain, George Dance, 13:26
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 13:14
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 13:11
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 13:09
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 13:07
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, George Dance, 13:01
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 12:59
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 12:53
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, George Dance, 12:44
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 12:41
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 12:35
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 12:31
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 12:25
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 12:19
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 12:18
Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 12:16
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 12:14
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 12:12
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., LordBeotian, 12:08
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 11:40
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 11:24
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 11:23
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 11:20
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 11:10
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., LordBeotian, 11:00
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 10:55
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 10:52
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 10:40
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 10:36
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 10:31
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 10:25
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 10:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 10:19
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 10:15
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 10:11
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 10:10
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 10:06
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 10:05
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 10:04
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 10:04
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 09:58
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 09:54
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 09:50
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 09:47
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 09:44
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 09:37
Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 09:29
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 09:25
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 09:18
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 09:17
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 09:16
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 09:13
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 09:08
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 09:05
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 09:04
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 08:57
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 08:56
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 08:55
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 08:51
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 08:48
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 08:25
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:53
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 07:33
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 07:26
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 05:36
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, mea305, 05:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 03:59
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, andrewspencers, 01:00
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Ross A. Finlayson, 00:37
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, andrewspencers, 00:10

October 07, 2005

Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 22:48
Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 22:01
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 20:41
Re: Skolem Again, george, 20:00
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Timothy Little, 19:01
Re: THE GODEL LIE, |-|erc, 18:40
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 18:31
THE HALT LIE, |-|erc, 18:23
THE CANTOR LIE, |-|erc, 18:14
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Chris Menzel, 18:05
THE GODEL LIE, |-|erc, 18:03
Re: Skolem Again, george, 17:56
Re: Skolem Again, george, 17:54
Re: Skolem Again, george, 17:45
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Jonathan Hoyle, 17:45
Re: Skolem Again, george, 17:32
Re: Skolem Again, Daryl McCullough, 17:11
Re: Skolem Again, Daryl McCullough, 17:00
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 16:52
Re: **************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 16:50
Re: Here's a tip, |-|erc, 16:47
Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 16:19
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jonathan Hoyle, 15:53
Logistics Problem: Lisa's Tables, Andy, 15:51
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, |-|erc, 15:49
How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, andrewspencers, 14:43
Re: Skolem Again, J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz, 14:41
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, andrewspencers, 14:40
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 14:38
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Mark lman, 14:33
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 14:30
Re: **************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 14:28
Re: Here's a tip, |-|erc, 14:25
Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., |-|erc, 14:19
Re: Skolem Again, Herman Jurjus, 13:58
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 13:43
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 13:38
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 13:20
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 13:17
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 13:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 13:10
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 12:41
Re: Skolem Again, Daryl McCullough, 12:39
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 12:38
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 12:29
Re: **************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 12:13
Re: ************************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 12:08
Re: Here's a tip, |-|erc, 12:05
Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., |-|erc, 12:03
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 11:21
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 10:54
Re: THE CANTOR LIE, Randy Poe, 10:22
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, The Ghost In The Machine, 10:00
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 09:59
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 09:57
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 09:57
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 09:49
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 09:37
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 09:37
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 09:29
Re: Skolem Again, Herman Jurjus, 09:14
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 08:52
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 08:43
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, David C . Ullrich, 07:58
Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 07:56
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 07:51
Re: THE HALT LIE, Igor, 07:47
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 07:02
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jean-Yves . Moyen, 06:16
re: Please Explain, Acme Diagnostics, 05:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 03:43
Re: Please Explain, William Elliot, 03:29
Please Explain, dtfoster, 03:06
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 02:34
Re: THE GODEL LIE, Jonathan Hoyle, 01:25
Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 01:00
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 00:59
Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 00:58
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Jonathan Hoyle, 00:52

October 06, 2005

Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 23:54
Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 23:24
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 23:23
Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 23:21
Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., Rupert, 23:20
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 22:31
Re: Skolem Again, Daryl McCullough, 22:31
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Proginoskes, 21:56
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Proginoskes, 21:48
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 21:27
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 21:26
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, |-|erc, 21:18
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 21:05
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 20:52
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 20:40
Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., Rupert, 20:38
LOOK YOU MORONS, |-|erc, 20:36
Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 20:36
Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 20:35
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 20:32
Re: **************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 20:28
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 20:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 20:20
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 20:18
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 20:10
Re: Here's a tip, |-|erc, 20:08
Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., |-|erc, 20:07
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 19:53
Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 19:49
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 19:47
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 19:33
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 19:31
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 19:27
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 19:23
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 19:09
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 19:07
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 18:55
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 18:51
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Proginoskes, 18:49
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Proginoskes, 18:39
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, H. Enderton, 18:13
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 17:41
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Mark-T, 17:39
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Torkel Franzen, 17:35
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 17:27
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 17:24
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 17:18
THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., |-|erc, 17:10
Here's a tip, |-|erc, 17:05
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 16:59
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Jonathan Hoyle, 16:57
************************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 16:09
**************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 16:09
>>>>>>>THE GODEL PROOF YOU WERE NOT MEANT TO SEE<<<<<<<<<<, |-|erc, 16:08
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 16:07
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 16:01
G = ~ ( G has a proof ), |-|erc, 15:54
THE GODELS PROOF YOU WERENT MEANT TO SEE, |-|erc, 15:51
CASE FALSE: G has a proof CONTRADICTION, |-|erc, 15:51
G has no proof, |-|erc, 15:51
G has no proof IS_EQUIVALENT_TO G, |-|erc, 15:50
SPOT THE CENTURY LONG CONTRADICTION, |-|erc, 15:50
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 15:45
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 15:41
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 15:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 15:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:20
OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 13:42
Re: ************************************************************************************************, Pat, 13:41
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 13:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 13:27
Re: G is proven!, Androcles, 12:53
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 12:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 12:16
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 12:03
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 11:59
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 11:56
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 11:49
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Androcles, 11:42
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jean-Yves . Moyen, 10:32
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 09:41
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 09:27
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 08:56
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 08:49
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:35
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 08:30
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:23
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, David C . Ullrich, 07:59
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:49
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, David C . Ullrich, 07:45
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:44
Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 07:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 07:37
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:33
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 07:26
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:25
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 07:17
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, David C . Ullrich, 07:07
Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., Rupert, 06:51
Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 06:48
Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 06:46
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:08
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:32
0/0, zaljohar, 04:23
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 04:11
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Proginoskes, 04:07
Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Proginoskes, 03:57
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 03:17
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 02:36
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 02:30
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 02:13
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jonathan Hoyle, 01:57
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 01:56
Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 01:56
Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 01:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 01:54
Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., Rupert, 01:53
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 01:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 01:50
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 01:49
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 01:45
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Rupert, 01:44
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 01:23
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 01:12
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 01:02
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 00:45
Re: A question about provability in FOL., galathaea, 00:36
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 00:27
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 00:18

October 05, 2005

Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 23:46
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, david petry, 23:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 22:54
Re: Skolem Again, george, 22:25
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Rupert, 22:25
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, george, 22:20
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 21:57
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 21:50
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 21:44
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 21:00
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 20:52
Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., abe . buckingham, 20:46
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Pierre Asselin, 20:39
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 20:31
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 20:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 20:06
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 19:43
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 19:38
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 19:25
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 19:08
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 19:03
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Rupert, 18:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 18:46
Re: Skolem Again, Rupert, 18:45
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 18:44
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 18:41
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 18:29
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jonathan Hoyle, 16:28
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 16:03
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 15:36
Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 15:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 15:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:51
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, |-|erc, 12:55
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, |-|erc, 12:47
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:39
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 11:02
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:55
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 10:07
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:00
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:59
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:40
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:36
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:35
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:32
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 09:32
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Jesse F. Hughes, 09:28
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:21
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:15
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:11
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:10
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 09:09
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 08:41
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 08:23
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, David C . Ullrich, 08:12
Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 08:01
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 07:57
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, David C . Ullrich, 07:39
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 07:32
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Rupert, 07:28
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 07:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 07:17
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 07:04
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 06:51
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 06:47
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 06:30
Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 04:50
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 04:25
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 04:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 04:03
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 03:47
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Rupert, 03:03
Re: ANY LOGICIANS WHO CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?, Rupert, 03:01
Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Rupert, 03:01
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 02:51
Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Rupert, 02:08
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 01:51
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, |-|erc, 01:44
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 01:41
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 01:37
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 01:12
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 01:04
Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 00:15
Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 00:07
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 00:02

October 04, 2005

Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 23:57
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 23:46
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 23:46
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Robert E. Beaudoin, 23:36
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 23:26
UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, |-|erc, 21:58
ANY LOGICIANS WHO CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?, |-|erc, 21:56
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 21:51
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 21:47
Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, andrewspencers, 21:32
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 21:27
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 21:14
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 20:57
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 20:54
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 20:41
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Pierre Asselin, 20:30
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 20:07
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 20:05
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Mark-T, 17:52
Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 16:30
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 16:06
Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 15:42
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, William of Ockham, 15:39
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 12:38
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 12:35
Tarski's terminology for identity, andrewspencers, 11:57
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, David C . Ullrich, 11:46
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, David C . Ullrich, 11:45
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Herman Jurjus, 10:58
Re: !! i want to learn !!, Tom, 10:45
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 10:41
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 10:30
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 10:05
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 09:34
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 09:14
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 09:11
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, timvaz_059, 08:57
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 08:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:52
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:48
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 08:46
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 08:44
Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, David C . Ullrich, 08:39
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, David C . Ullrich, 08:34
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:29
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, David C . Ullrich, 08:04
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:26
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:26
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:36
Re: ANY LOGICIANS WHO CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?, timvaz_059, 05:31
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 05:29
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:11
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 05:05
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 04:37
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 04:35
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 03:47
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:53
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 01:46
Re: !! i want to learn !!, galathaea, 01:42
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 01:32
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Herman Jurjus, 01:30
Re: A question about provability in FOL., galathaea, 01:30
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:25
Re: !! i want to learn !!, Torkel Franzen, 01:17
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 01:12
!! i want to learn !!, galathaea, 01:09
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 01:08
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 00:53
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 00:44
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Allan Adler, 00:09

October 03, 2005

Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 22:49
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 22:03
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 21:56
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 21:50
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 21:47
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 21:32
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 20:55
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 20:54
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 20:52
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 20:33
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 20:31
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 20:10
Re: Some questions on logic, Loogie, 20:06
Re: Some questions on logic, Loogie, 20:05
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 19:54
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, G . Frege, 19:42
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, george, 19:07
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 18:56
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 18:21
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, david petry, 17:46
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, david petry, 17:43
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 17:13
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 17:13
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 15:44
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 14:48
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, William of Ockham, 14:44
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, William of Ockham, 14:42
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:39
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:33
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Herman Jurjus, 14:22
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 13:59
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 11:06
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 10:55
Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:04
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 09:04
Re: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, The Ghost In The Machine, 09:00
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 08:54
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 08:38
Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 08:36
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, David C . Ullrich, 07:12
Re: Just checking (re Godel's second theorem), Peter_Smith, 06:30
Re: evidence that primes of form (n^2)+1 are finite, William Elliot, 06:13
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:53
Re: Some questions on logic, |-|erc, 02:27
Re: :: semantic realisation in constructivism ::, Keith Ramsay, 02:25
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, |-|erc, 02:20
INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 02:19
THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 02:18
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, |-|erc, 02:00
Re: Some questions on logic, Jim Spriggs, 01:30
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 00:06
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 00:01
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 00:00

October 02, 2005

Some questions on logic, Mark-T, 23:20
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 23:20
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, G . Frege, 23:13
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 22:48
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 22:47
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 22:11
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 22:10
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 21:27
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 21:12
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 21:12
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 21:10
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 20:46
Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 20:09
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 20:03
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, david petry, 19:29
Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 19:27
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 19:06
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, george, 18:59
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 18:39
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 17:53
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, G . Frege, 16:24
Re: Just checking (re Godel's second theorem), Peter_Smith, 16:17
Just checking (re Godel's second theorem), Peter_Smith, 16:12
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 13:35
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 13:28
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 13:24
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 13:12
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 12:50
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Patrick, 12:43
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 12:25
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 12:05
Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 7, Douglas Eagleson, 10:47
Re: A question about provability in FOL., David C . Ullrich, 10:34
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, David C . Ullrich, 10:30
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 10:17
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 10:15
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Dan Christensen, 10:08
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 08:58
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 08:54
Re: Square of Opposition, Owen, 06:32
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 06:15
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 05:45
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 05:39
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 05:38
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 05:36
Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 05:33
Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 05:27
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 03:26
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 03:06

October 01, 2005

Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 22:36
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Chris Menzel, 22:27
Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 20:52
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 20:41
A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 20:36
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 19:54
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 19:39
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 19:39
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 19:38
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Chris Menzel, 18:51
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 18:06
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 18:03
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 17:21
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Ross A. Finlayson, 17:01
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 16:51
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 16:51
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 16:16
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 16:12
Re: Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?, andrewspencers, 15:47
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Patrick, 15:23
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 15:22
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 15:21
Re: Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?, Jim Spriggs, 15:18
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 15:12
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 14:50
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, george, 14:38
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 14:31
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, george, 14:28
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 14:05
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 13:31
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 12:30
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, timvaz_059, 12:29
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 12:19
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 12:12
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 11:48
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 11:42
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 11:35
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 11:31
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 11:12
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 11:04
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 10:30
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Daryl McCullough, 09:41
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 08:01
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 07:42
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 07:40
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 07:29
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 07:13
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 05:30
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 05:19
Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, timvaz_059, 04:51
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 04:23
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 03:53
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 03:50
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 03:44
Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?, andrewspencers, 00:20
Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 00:19

September 30, 2005

Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Bajori, 23:32
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Sid Bonfire, 22:19
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, george, 21:39
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 21:22
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 21:10
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, bushite killers for CHRIST - DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD�killthefuk!, 21:08
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, george, 20:58
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, george, 20:54
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 20:44
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Morgil, 20:37
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, bushite killers for CHRIST - DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD�killthefuk!, 19:21
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, david petry, 19:02
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Flame of the West, 18:38
UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 7, H. Enderton, 17:39
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 17:28
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, David Bernier, 16:59
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 15:36
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:33
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:30
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 14:11
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:54
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:52
Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 13:50
Re: Square of Opposition, Owen, 08:57
Primitive Recursion and Computability, Ugo Dal Lago, 07:34
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 06:36
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 06:09
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 06:07
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 06:07
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Flame of the West, 01:06

September 29, 2005

Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, David Ames, 20:50
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 20:10
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 20:09
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 20:08
Re: Square of Opposition, poopdeville, 19:33
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 19:07
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 19:04
Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 18:57
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 16:42
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Bajori, 15:31
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, bushite killers for CHRIST - DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD�killthefuk!, 15:17
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 15:10
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 14:43
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:28
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:26
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 12:49
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 12:32
How Dave Touretzky censored my website, Barbara Schwarz, 11:28
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 11:19
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:57
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, darryl, 08:57
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:53
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 07:36
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 07:33
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 07:24
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 07:19
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Ross A. Finlayson, 07:10
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:06
a very easy problem, nonick, 07:02
a very easy problem, d . chikhladze, 07:00
Holey Jumping God, William Elliot, 06:46
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 06:45
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:43
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:25
Re: Square of Opposition, poopdeville, 05:28
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, TEEN - DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD-�killthe twistedevil nazi fuk!, 04:56
Re: temporal logic Kt4, galathaea, 01:06

September 28, 2005

Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 23:39
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 22:56
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Blue Hornet, 22:42
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Matthew Russotto, 22:28
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 22:01
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 19:31
Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 17:00
Re: temporal logic Kt4, eimikion, 16:56
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 16:50
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 16:48
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian, 15:14
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian, 15:12
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 14:17
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:01
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 13:52
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 13:43
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:27
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 13:23
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 13:23
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:22
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:21
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:19
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 13:18
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:17
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 13:16
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:15
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, George Weinberg, 13:06
Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs. EVOLUTION --OR-- Common Sense vs. Deceit, Deception, Collusion & Conspiracy = WAKE UP, WORLD!!, Oceanstrip, 09:09
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 08:43
Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 08:33
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 08:19
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 08:05
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Allan Adler, 08:00
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Randy Cox, 07:55
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 07:24
INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs. EVOLUTION --OR-- Common Sense vs. Deceit, Deception, Collusion & Conspiracy = WAKE UP, WORLD!!, Ed Conrad, 07:20
Re: Herc the Heritic, |-|erc, 07:00
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD-�killthe twistedevil nazi fuk!, 05:55
Herc the Heritic, William Elliot, 05:18
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:46
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Chance Hopkins, 03:19
Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, James Dow Allen, 02:24
In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, richardhutnik, 01:57

September 27, 2005

Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 22:49
Re: all the good books are OOP, Jim Spriggs, 22:23
Re: all the good books are OOP, H. Enderton, 22:11
Re: Another recursion theory / decidability question, H. Enderton, 21:53
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 20:09
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 20:08
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 20:03
Re: Square of Opposition, Barb Knox, 19:50
Another recursion theory / decidability question, kevin, 17:31
Re: Fuzzy Logic, Jim Spriggs, 13:37
Re: Topology of proof, Tom, 12:35
Re: Recursive Well-ordering query., Aatu Koskensilta, 12:04
Re: Recursive Well-ordering query., Aatu Koskensilta, 12:02
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 10:53
Re: Fuzzy Logic, Roger Bagula, 10:38
Re: Recursive Well-ordering query., Daryl McCullough, 10:29
Excluded Middle and Definiteness, Daryl McCullough, 10:16
Who first called the First Incompleteness Theorem the First Incompleteness Theorem?, Peter_Smith, 09:54
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 07:23
Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 06:11
Re: Square of Opposition, raydpratt, 03:43
Recursive Well-ordering query., Bill Taylor, 02:33
Re: temporal logic Kt4, galathaea, 00:08
Re: temporal logic Kt4, galathaea, 00:03

September 26, 2005

Re: all the good books are OOP, James Dolan, 20:11
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 20:08
temporal logic Kt4, eimikion, 17:09
Re: Topology of proof, galathaea, 16:04
Re: Square of Opposition, Owen, 15:28
Re: all the good books are OOP, Jim Spriggs, 14:46
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:17
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 14:16
Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 14:14
Re: Topology of proof, Tom, 11:08
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 10:46
all the good books are OOP, Allan Adler, 09:23
re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 07:55

September 25, 2005

Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 23:09
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Top Cop, 22:41
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Top Cop, 22:41
Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Barb Knox, 18:15
Square of Opposition, George Dance, 16:33
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 13:24
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 12:31
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 12:06
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 10:33
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 10:25
Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 10:20
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 06:09
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 05:17
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 05:16
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 02:34
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, Keith Ramsay, 00:53
Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Keith Ramsay, 00:46

September 24, 2005

Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Jim Spriggs, 21:41
Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Barb Knox, 21:37
Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Keith Ramsay, 20:18