sci.logic (thread)

nonstandard models of PA, Rupert, 2005/10/31
- Re: nonstandard models of PA, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/31
Functions on a complete lattice: when are the fixed points distinct?, John Fiskio-Lasseter, 2005/10/30
- Re: Functions on a complete lattice: when are the fixed points distinct?, William Elliot, 2005/10/30
Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, William Elliot, 2005/10/30
- Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/30
  - Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, yawnmoth, 2005/10/30
- Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Dan Christensen, 2005/10/30
  - Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/30
    - Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Dan Christensen, 2005/10/30
      
      Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, LordBeotian, 2005/10/31
  - Re: Bertrand Russell and contradictions, Dan Christensen, 2005/10/30
Poem on halting problem, yarden . katz, 2005/10/29
- Re: Poem on halting problem, William Elliot, 2005/10/29
Re: logic on the web, John Velman, 2005/10/28
- Re: logic on the web, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/28
Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), Mike Carroll, 2005/10/28
- Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/29
  - Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), Mike Carroll, 2005/10/29
    - Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/29
    - Re: Open question about propositional S5(?), Owen, 2005/10/30
Question on upwards LST, Barb Knox, 2005/10/23
- Re: Question on upwards LST, Robert Low, 2005/10/23
- Re: Question on upwards LST, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/23
Worked Examples, Robert Thornley, 2005/10/22
Routley's "noneism", Paul Holbach, 2005/10/22
- Re: Routley's "noneism", Paul Holbach, 2005/10/22
  - Re: Routley's "noneism", examachine, 2005/10/22
- Re: Routley's "noneism", Paul Holbach, 2005/10/22
Axioms v. definitions., Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/21
- Re: Axioms v. definitions., Keith Ramsay, 2005/10/22
- Re: Axioms v. definitions., george, 2005/10/22
- Re: Axioms v. definitions., |-|erc, 2005/10/22
PUNKT, ksRobak, Tomek Wilmowski i SEDNO FILOZOFII, Tom, 2005/10/21
well-ordered sets and inductive sets, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 2005/10/20
- Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, William Elliot, 2005/10/20
  - Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, Arturo Magidin, 2005/10/20
    - Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, poopdeville, 2005/10/21
      
      Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, Arturo Magidin, 2005/10/21
      
      Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, poopdeville, 2005/10/21
    - Re: well-ordered sets and inductive sets, William Elliot, 2005/10/21
=, Charlie-Boo, 2005/10/19
- Re: =, Dan Christensen, 2005/10/19
- Re: =, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
  - Re: =, Owen, 2005/10/20
    - Re: =, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: =, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: =, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: =, Owen, 2005/10/21
  - Re: =, george, 2005/10/22
- Re: =, H. Enderton, 2005/10/20
  - Re: =, Owen, 2005/10/20
    - Message not available
      
      Re: =, Owen, 2005/10/29
Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", Mike Carroll, 2005/10/19
- Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/19
  - Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", Mike Carroll, 2005/10/20
    - Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", abo, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: Looking for Kripke's "Outline of a theory of truth", abo, 2005/10/20
string matching as a calculus, |-|erc, 2005/10/19
- Re: string matching as a calculus, Jean-Yves Moyen, 2005/10/19
Re: 1 + 1 = 2, andrewspencers, 2005/10/18
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/18
  - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/18
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Keith Ramsay, 2005/10/20
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2, J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz, 2005/10/20
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
  - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Barb Knox, 2005/10/20
    - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
    - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/21
      
      Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Barb Knox, 2005/10/21
    - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/21
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
  - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Owen, 2005/10/20
    - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/20
    - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, Robert Low, 2005/10/20
    - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 2005/10/20
    - Re: 1 + 1 = 2, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/21
- Re: 1 + 1 = 2, G . Frege, 2005/10/22
Re: Learning Type Theory in Church, andrewspencers, 2005/10/18
- Re: Learning Type Theory in Church, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/18
Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/17
- Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, William Elliot, 2005/10/17
- Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, Michael De, 2005/10/18
  - Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/18
  - Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/18
    - Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/18
- Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/18
- Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, Owen, 2005/10/18
- Re: Another way of expressing the difference between first order and second order languages?, george, 2005/10/22
Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 2005/10/17
- Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/17
  - Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 2005/10/18
    - Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/18
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/19
      
      Message not available
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/20
      
      Message not available
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, Rupert, 2005/10/21
      
      Re: Godels proof does NOT refute a possible single formal system, |-|erc, 2005/10/22
Yessenin-Volpin, Rupert, 2005/10/17
- Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/18
- Re: Yessenin-Volpin, abo, 2005/10/18
  - Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Rupert, 2005/10/18
    - Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/18
      
      Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Lee Rudolph, 2005/10/19
  - Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Herman Jurjus, 2005/10/21
    - Re: Yessenin-Volpin, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/21
Conditional elimination, Michael De, 2005/10/17
- Re: Conditional elimination, Roberto Vescarelli, 2005/10/17
- Re: Conditional elimination, G . Frege, 2005/10/17
  - Re: Conditional elimination, Michael De, 2005/10/18
question about PRA, Rupert, 2005/10/16
- Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/17
  - Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 2005/10/17
    - Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: question about PRA, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: question about PRA, Keith Ramsay, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: question about PRA, Rupert, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: question about PRA, Keith Ramsay, 2005/10/21
Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 2005/10/16
- Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 2005/10/16
  - Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 2005/10/16
    - Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 2005/10/16
  - Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Proginoskes, 2005/10/16
    - Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 2005/10/16
    - Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Mark lman, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, |-|erc, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, Rupert, 2005/10/17
- Re: Nobody can prove " YOU CAN'T PROVE ME " therefore it's TRUE, William Hughes, 2005/10/17
Parsons and the Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
- Re: Parsons and the Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/16
  - Re: Parsons and the Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
First order Induction axioms, LordBeotian, 2005/10/16
- Re: First order Induction axioms, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/16
- First order Induction axioms, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/16
- First order Induction axioms, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/16
An improved Godel numbering system, |-|erc, 2005/10/16
- Re: An improved Godel numbering system, |-|erc, 2005/10/16
The other Principle of Abstraction, andrewspencers, 2005/10/15
UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21, H. Enderton, 2005/10/14
- Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21, Ross A. Finlayson, 2005/10/14
  - Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21, H. Enderton, 2005/10/16
    - Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 21, Ross A. Finlayson, 2005/10/19
Proof of Peirce's law, mitch, 2005/10/14
- Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 2005/10/14
  - Re: Proof of Peirce's law, mitch, 2005/10/14
    - Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 2005/10/14
  - Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 2005/10/14
    - Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 2005/10/14
    - Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 2005/10/14
    - Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: Proof of Peirce's law, mitch, 2005/10/15
  - Re: Proof of Peirce's law, G . Frege, 2005/10/15
- Re: Proof of Peirce's law, Dan Christensen, 2005/10/17
i-C&P, an International Conference -second call, Colin . Schmidt, 2005/10/12
Tarski commentators' definitions of "model", andrewspencers, 2005/10/12
An urgent message for Archimedes Plutonium, Ian St. John, 2005/10/12
COMMON SENSE, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
- Re: COMMON SENSE, Rupert, 2005/10/11
- Re: COMMON SENSE, David Bernier, 2005/10/13
  - Re: COMMON SENSE, |-|erc, 2005/10/13
    - Re: COMMON SENSE, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: COMMON SENSE, |-|erc, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: COMMON SENSE, Rupert, 2005/10/14
Proof o diagonalization lemma, LordBeotian, 2005/10/12
Impredicative ordinal, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/11
- Re: Impredicative ordinal, Rupert, 2005/10/12
- Re: Impredicative ordinal, Keith Ramsay, 2005/10/13
  - Re: Impredicative ordinal, Rupert, 2005/10/13
- Impredicative ordinal, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/14
  - Re: Impredicative ordinal, Rupert, 2005/10/14
- Impredicative ordinal, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/17
  - Re: Impredicative ordinal, Keith Ramsay, 2005/10/19
Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/11
- Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/11
  - Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/12
    - Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/16
    - Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/13
  - Re: Testing Validity in FOPL-A, George Dance, 2005/10/13
Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, LordBeotian, 2005/10/11
- Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, |-|erc, 2005/10/09
- Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
  - Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, LordBeotian, 2005/10/11
    - Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, |-|erc, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/11
- Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, david petry, 2005/10/11
  - Re: Cantor diagonal argument and intuitionistic logic, abo, 2005/10/12
----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
- Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, Joubin Houshyar, 2005/10/09
  - Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
    - Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, Jean-Yves . Moyen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 2005/10/11
- Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/10
  - Re: ----------------------------------- U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 2005/10/11
-------- THE GODEL PROOF YOU WERE NOT MEANT TO SEE ----------, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
STEP 1: G = not ( G has a proof ), |-|erc, 2005/10/10
STEP 2: CASE FALSE - G has a proof - CONTRADICTION, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
STEP 4: G does not have a proof IS_EQUIVALENT_TO G, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
STEP 5: G has a proof, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
- Re: STEP 5: G has a proof, Rupert, 2005/10/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/10
- Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/11
  - Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/12
  - Message not available
    - Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 2005/10/18
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/18
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 2005/10/18
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 2005/10/19
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, |-|erc, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/13
  - Message not available
    - Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, george, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Rupert, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: CORROLORY: G ALWAYS HAD A PROOF SO HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO "UNPROVABLE"?, Jason Lang, 2005/10/20
  - Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary], george, 2005/10/15
    - Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary], Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/15
    - Re: CORROLORY[sic]:[corollary], |-|erc, 2005/10/16
Re: STEP 3: G does not have a proof, Richard Tobin, 2005/10/10
An axoimatic proof., mitch, 2005/10/10
- Re: An axoimatic proof., Roberto Vescarelli, 2005/10/10
  - Re: An axoimatic proof., Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/10
    - Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: An axoimatic proof., mitch, 2005/10/11
  - Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 2005/10/10
    - Message not available
      
      Re: An axoimatic proof., Dan Christensen, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 2005/10/15
- Re: An axoimatic proof., Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/10
  - Re: An axoimatic proof., George Dance, 2005/10/11
    - Re: An axoimatic proof., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: An axoimatic proof., George Dance, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: An axoimatic proof., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
- Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 2005/10/10
  - Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 2005/10/10
  - Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 2005/10/10
- Re: An axoimatic proof., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
  - Re: An axoimatic proof., George Dance, 2005/10/11
    - Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 2005/10/11
  - Re: An axoimatic proof., G . Frege, 2005/10/11
BEWARE OF LINDA WEST (925) 876-7441 of CHIPMAN UNITED VAN LINES/, teckard, 2005/10/10
What are the Adics?, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 2005/10/09
THIS SENTENCE IS NOT e WELL_FORMED_TRUE_SENTENCES, |-|erc, 2005/10/09
- Re: THIS SENTENCE IS NOT e WELL_FORMED_TRUE_SENTENCES, Joubin Houshyar, 2005/10/09
  - Re: THIS SENTENCE IS NOT e WELL_FORMED_TRUE_SENTENCES, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
- Re: THIS SENTENCE IS NOT e WELL_FORMED_TRUE_SENTENCES, Rupert, 2005/10/10
GODEL : Here's a proven truth G, maybe there's unproven ones?, |-|erc, 2005/10/09
- Re: GODEL : Here's a proven truth G, maybe there's unproven ones?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/09
  - Re: GODEL : Here's a proven truth G, maybe there's unproven ones?, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
FORMALISM = RIGOROUS, |-|erc, 2005/10/09
THE HALT LIE, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
- Re: THE HALT LIE, Igor, 2005/10/07
  - Re: THE HALT LIE, |-|erc, 2005/10/08
    - Re: THE HALT LIE, uglukapushdug, 2005/10/08
THE CANTOR LIE, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
- Re: THE CANTOR LIE, Randy Poe, 2005/10/07
  - Re: THE CANTOR LIE, |-|erc, 2005/10/08
THE GODEL LIE, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
- Re: THE GODEL LIE, Jonathan Hoyle, 2005/10/07
  - Re: THE GODEL LIE, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
    - Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/07
    - Re: THE GODEL LIE, Jonathan Hoyle, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Timothy Little, 2005/10/07
      
      Message not available
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, |-|erc, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Dave Seaman, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Mark-T, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Mark-T, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Barb Knox, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, LordBeotian, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, H. Enderton, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Barb Knox, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, H. Enderton, 2005/10/18
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Keith Ramsay, 2005/10/22
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/22
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/22
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/22
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/22
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/22
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/22
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/23
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 2005/10/22
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bryan Olson, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Bob Stewart, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Robert Low, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Rupert, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE GODEL Truth, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE GODEL LIE, |-|erc, 2005/10/09
Logistics Problem: Lisa's Tables, Andy, 2005/10/07
How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/07
- Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/07
  - Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/08
    - Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/08
    - Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/08
    - Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/08
    - Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, George Dance, 2005/10/08
- Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, George Dance, 2005/10/08
  - Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/08
- Re: How can sentential calculus be considered an independent theory not part of logic?, George Dance, 2005/10/08
Please Explain, dtfoster, 2005/10/07
- Re: Please Explain, William Elliot, 2005/10/07
- re: Please Explain, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/07
- Re: Please Explain, George Dance, 2005/10/08
- Re: Please Explain, John Velman, 2005/10/08
LOOK YOU MORONS, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
- Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Proginoskes, 2005/10/06
  - Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
  - Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
    - Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Proginoskes, 2005/10/06
- Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Androcles, 2005/10/06
- Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Jonathan Hoyle, 2005/10/06
  - Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Proginoskes, 2005/10/06
    - Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Jonathan Hoyle, 2005/10/07
    - Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
- Re: LOOK YOU MORONS, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 2005/10/06
THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., |-|erc, 2005/10/06
- Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., Rupert, 2005/10/06
  - Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., |-|erc, 2005/10/06
    - Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THIS IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SET ALL_TRUE_SENTENCES., Rupert, 2005/10/06
Here's a tip, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
- Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 2005/10/06
  - Re: Here's a tip, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
    - Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Here's a tip, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Here's a tip, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Here's a tip, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Here's a tip, Rupert, 2005/10/07
************************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
- Re: ************************************************************************************************, Pat, 2005/10/06
  - Re: ************************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
**************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
- Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 2005/10/06
  - Re: **************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
    - Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: **************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: **************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: **************************************************************************************, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: **************************************************************************************, Rupert, 2005/10/07
>>>>>>>THE GODEL PROOF YOU WERE NOT MEANT TO SEE<<<<<<<<<<, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
G = ~ ( G has a proof ), |-|erc, 2005/10/06
THE GODELS PROOF YOU WERENT MEANT TO SEE, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
CASE FALSE: G has a proof CONTRADICTION, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
G has no proof, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
G has no proof IS_EQUIVALENT_TO G, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
SPOT THE CENTURY LONG CONTRADICTION, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 2005/10/06
- Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., abe . buckingham, 2005/10/05
- Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Rupert, 2005/10/05
  - Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 2005/10/06
    - Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Rupert, 2005/10/06
- Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 2005/10/06
  - Message not available
    - Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Message not available
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., LordBeotian, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., LordBeotian, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news2, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., LordBeotian, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., H. J. Sander Bruggink, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., H. J. Sander Bruggink, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., quasi, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Proginoskes, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Proginoskes, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Proginoskes, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Proginoskes, 2005/10/20
  - Message not available
    - Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Mark lman, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
- Message not available
  - Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., George Dance, 2005/10/29
    - Message not available
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., George Dance, 2005/10/30
    - Message not available
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., George Dance, 2005/10/30
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/30
      
      Re: OK, WHAT theory can't you prove? Name one that isn't G., Virgil, 2005/10/30
Re: G is proven!, Androcles, 2005/10/06
0/0, zaljohar, 2005/10/06
UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, |-|erc, 2005/10/04
- Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/04
  - Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/04
    - Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, timvaz_059, 2005/10/04
    - Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/04
      
      Message not available
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Mark-T, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Mark-T, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, matt271829-news, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Mark-T, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/13
  - Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
    - Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: UNIVERSAL THEOREM PROVER, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
ANY LOGICIANS WHO CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?, |-|erc, 2005/10/04
- Re: ANY LOGICIANS WHO CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?, timvaz_059, 2005/10/04
- Re: ANY LOGICIANS WHO CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?, Rupert, 2005/10/05
Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, andrewspencers, 2005/10/04
- Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Rupert, 2005/10/05
  - Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, andrewspencers, 2005/10/07
    - Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, andrewspencers, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/08
    - Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Rupert, 2005/10/08
  - Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Ross A. Finlayson, 2005/10/08
- Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/05
  - Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
    - Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Tarski's weird definition of cardinal numbers, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/07
Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/04
- Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/04
  - Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/05
  - Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 2005/10/05
    - Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Herman Jurjus, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Herman Jurjus, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, david petry, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, abo, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/06
  - Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/05
    - Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, J.L. Perez-de-la-Cruz, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Skolem Again, berry, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Lee Rudolph, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Skolem Again, abo, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, abo, 2005/10/16
    - Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/07
- Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/05
  - Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/05
    - Re: Skolem Again, Rupert, 2005/10/05
    - Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, abo, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Skolem Again, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: Skolem Again, abo, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: Skolem Again, abo, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: Skolem Again, abo, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, abo, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Rupert, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/15
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Rupert, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: Skolem Again, William of Ockham, 2005/10/16
      
      Re: Skolem Again, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/16
- Re: Skolem Again, george, 2005/10/05
Tarski's terminology for identity, andrewspencers, 2005/10/04
!! i want to learn !!, galathaea, 2005/10/04
- Re: !! i want to learn !!, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/04
  - Re: !! i want to learn !!, galathaea, 2005/10/04
- Re: !! i want to learn !!, Tom, 2005/10/04
Re: evidence that primes of form (n^2)+1 are finite, William Elliot, 2005/10/03
Re: :: semantic realisation in constructivism ::, Keith Ramsay, 2005/10/03
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, |-|erc, 2005/10/03
- Re: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, The Ghost In The Machine, 2005/10/03
INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 2005/10/03
- Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Rupert, 2005/10/05
- Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Rupert, 2005/10/05
  - Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
    - Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jonathan Hoyle, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jonathan Hoyle, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jean-Yves . Moyen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jean-Yves . Moyen, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, Jonathan Hoyle, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, |-|erc, 2005/10/08
- Re: INCOMPLETENESS FALLACY, mea305, 2005/10/08
THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/03
- Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/03
  - Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/03
    - Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Jesse F. Hughes, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Robert Low, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Joe Hendrix, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Ralph Hartley, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, quasi, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Message not available
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, LordBeotian, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/09
      
      Message not available
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, matt271829-news, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Alan Smaill, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/04
      
      Message not available
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Message not available
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, timvaz_059, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Message not available
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, The Ghost In The Machine, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/10
      
      Message not available
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/11
      
      Message not available
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/14
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Barb Knox, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, |-|erc, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, The Ghost In The Machine, 2005/10/08
- Re: THE COMPLETENESS THEOREM, Rupert, 2005/10/04
Some questions on logic, Mark-T, 2005/10/02
- Re: Some questions on logic, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
- Re: Some questions on logic, |-|erc, 2005/10/03
  - Re: Some questions on logic, Loogie, 2005/10/03
  - Re: Some questions on logic, Loogie, 2005/10/03
Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, david petry, 2005/10/02
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/03
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, david petry, 2005/10/03
    - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/03
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/03
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, george, 2005/10/03
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, William of Ockham, 2005/10/03
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, david petry, 2005/10/03
    - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/03
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, William of Ockham, 2005/10/03
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 2005/10/04
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Pierre Asselin, 2005/10/04
    - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Pierre Asselin, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, LordBeotian, 2005/10/07
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/04
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, William of Ockham, 2005/10/04
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, george, 2005/10/05
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, david petry, 2005/10/05
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/04
  - Message not available
    - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/04
    - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Robert E. Beaudoin, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, H. Enderton, 2005/10/06
    - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/04
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/04
    - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/04
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/04
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
    - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/04
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/05
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/05
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/06
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/06
  - Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/06
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/10/06
- Re: Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/06
- Lowenheim-Skolem-Ockham Theorem, Bill Taylor, 2005/10/10
Just checking (re Godel's second theorem), Peter_Smith, 2005/10/02
- Re: Just checking (re Godel's second theorem), Peter_Smith, 2005/10/02
- Message not available
  - Re: Just checking (re Godel's second theorem), Peter_Smith, 2005/10/03
A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 2005/10/01
- Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 2005/10/01
- Re: A question about provability in FOL., David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/02
  - Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 2005/10/02
    - Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: A question about provability in FOL., galathaea, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: A question about provability in FOL., Nam Nguyen, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: A question about provability in FOL., galathaea, 2005/10/06
Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
- Re: Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
  - Re: Introduction to metalanguages written by a giant?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, timvaz_059, 2005/10/01
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, timvaz_059, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, george, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/02
      
      Message not available
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, george, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Chris Menzel, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, |-|erc, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/11
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/01
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/02
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/03
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/04
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/02
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/02
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/02
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
      
      Message not available
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/11
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/17
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/11
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/03
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, G . Frege, 2005/10/02
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/02
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, G . Frege, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Jim Spriggs, 2005/10/03
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, G . Frege, 2005/10/03
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 2005/10/09
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/11
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/12
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 2005/10/19
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 2005/10/19
  - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/11
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, George Dance, 2005/10/12
    - Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, george, 2005/10/13
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/18
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/20
      
      Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, george, 2005/10/22
- Re: Why are rules of inference not laws of sentential calculus?, andrewspencers, 2005/10/11
UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 7, H. Enderton, 2005/09/30
- Re: UCLA Logic Colloquium, Oct 7, Douglas Eagleson, 2005/10/02
Primitive Recursion and Computability, Ugo Dal Lago, 2005/09/30
How Dave Touretzky censored my website, Barbara Schwarz, 2005/09/29
a very easy problem, d . chikhladze, 2005/09/29
- a very easy problem, nonick, 2005/09/29
Holey Jumping God, William Elliot, 2005/09/29
Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 2005/09/28
- Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/09/29
  - Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 2005/09/29
    - Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, David Bernier, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, |-|erc, 2005/09/30
    - Re: Can God make a hole so big he can't jump over it?, David Ames, 2005/09/29
INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs. EVOLUTION --OR-- Common Sense vs. Deceit, Deception, Collusion & Conspiracy = WAKE UP, WORLD!!, Ed Conrad, 2005/09/28
- Re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN vs. EVOLUTION --OR-- Common Sense vs. Deceit, Deception, Collusion & Conspiracy = WAKE UP, WORLD!!, Oceanstrip, 2005/09/28
Herc the Heritic, William Elliot, 2005/09/28
- Re: Herc the Heritic, |-|erc, 2005/09/28
In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, richardhutnik, 2005/09/28
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, James Dow Allen, 2005/09/28
  - Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian, 2005/09/28
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Chance Hopkins, 2005/09/28
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Randy Cox, 2005/09/28
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Allan Adler, 2005/09/28
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, George Weinberg, 2005/09/28
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian, 2005/09/28
  - Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, darryl, 2005/09/29
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Matthew Russotto, 2005/09/28
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Blue Hornet, 2005/09/28
- Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Dan Christensen, 2005/10/02
  - Re: In a two party system, could both parties NOT represent the majority's views?, Allan Adler, 2005/10/04
Another recursion theory / decidability question, kevin, 2005/09/27
- Re: Another recursion theory / decidability question, H. Enderton, 2005/09/27
Re: Fuzzy Logic, Roger Bagula, 2005/09/27
- Re: Fuzzy Logic, Jim Spriggs, 2005/09/27
Who first called the First Incompleteness Theorem the First Incompleteness Theorem?, Peter_Smith, 2005/09/27
Recursive Well-ordering query., Bill Taylor, 2005/09/27
- Re: Recursive Well-ordering query., Daryl McCullough, 2005/09/27
  - Re: Recursive Well-ordering query., Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/09/27
    - Re: Recursive Well-ordering query., Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/09/27
temporal logic Kt4, eimikion, 2005/09/26
- Re: temporal logic Kt4, galathaea, 2005/09/27
  - Re: temporal logic Kt4, galathaea, 2005/09/27
    - Re: temporal logic Kt4, eimikion, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: temporal logic Kt4, galathaea, 2005/09/29
Re: Topology of proof, Tom, 2005/09/26
- Re: Topology of proof, galathaea, 2005/09/26
  - Re: Topology of proof, Tom, 2005/09/27
all the good books are OOP, Allan Adler, 2005/09/26
- Re: all the good books are OOP, Jim Spriggs, 2005/09/26
- Re: all the good books are OOP, James Dolan, 2005/09/26
- Re: all the good books are OOP, H. Enderton, 2005/09/27
  - Re: all the good books are OOP, Jim Spriggs, 2005/09/27
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Top Cop, 2005/09/25
- Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Top Cop, 2005/09/25
  - Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 2005/09/26
    - Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/09/26
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 2005/09/27
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/09/27
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Bajori, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Ty, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Flame of the West, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Morgil, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Flame of the West, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, * US *, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Michael O'Neill, 2005/09/30
- Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD-�killthe twistedevil nazi fuk!, 2005/09/28
- Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, TEEN - DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD-�killthe twistedevil nazi fuk!, 2005/09/29
- Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, bushite killers for CHRIST - DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD�killthefuk!, 2005/09/29
- Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, bushite killers for CHRIST - DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD�killthefuk!, 2005/09/30
- Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, bushite killers for CHRIST - DEMONbushdid911withAHMAD�killthefuk!, 2005/09/30
  - Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Sid Bonfire, 2005/09/30
    - Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Bajori, 2005/09/30
Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/09/25
- re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/09/26
  - Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/09/27
    - Re: Square of Opposition, Barb Knox, 2005/09/27
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/09/27
    - Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, poopdeville, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/02
  - Re: Square of Opposition, poopdeville, 2005/09/29
    - Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/09/29
  - Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/01
    - Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/06
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/09
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/09
  - Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/08
- Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/09/26
  - Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/01
    - Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/07
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/10/10
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/11
- Re: Square of Opposition, Owen, 2005/09/26
  - Re: Square of Opposition, raydpratt, 2005/09/27
  - Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
    - Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Owen, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, William of Ockham, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/08
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/08
  - Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/09/30
    - Re: Square of Opposition, Owen, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/02
  - Re: Square of Opposition, George Dance, 2005/10/08
- Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/09/27
  - Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/04
    - Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Tron, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/05
      
      Re: Square of Opposition, Acme Diagnostics, 2005/10/05
Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/25
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 2005/09/25
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 2005/09/25
  - Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/25
    - Message not available
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/26
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 2005/09/25
  - Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/26
    - Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 2005/09/27
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 2005/09/27
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Herman Jurjus, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Herman Jurjus, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Herman Jurjus, 2005/10/04
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Patrick, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Patrick, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/03
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, david petry, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, george, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Daryl McCullough, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, David C . Ullrich, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/02
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 2005/09/30
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
    - Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Torkel Franzen, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/28
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Ross A. Finlayson, 2005/09/29
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Aatu Koskensilta, 2005/09/29
- Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, george, 2005/09/30
  - Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/01
    - Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, george, 2005/10/01
      
      Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/10/02
  - Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox, Ross A. Finlayson, 2005/10/01
Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, Keith Ramsay, 2005/09/25
- Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/25
- Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, george, 2005/09/30
- Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 2005/09/25
  - Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/25
    - Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, Chris Menzel, 2005/09/25
      
      Re: Moore's account of Skolem's Paradox, William of Ockham, 2005/09/25
Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Barb Knox, 2005/09/24
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Jim Spriggs, 2005/09/24
- Re: Goedel's undecidable G, Keith Ramsay, 2005/09/25
Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Keith Ramsay, 2005/09/24
- Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', David C . Ullrich, 2005/09/25
  - Re: Skolem's 'Paradox', Barb Knox, 2005/09/25
- Excluded Middle and Definiteness, Daryl McCullough, 2005/09/27