sci.logic (date)

sci.logic (date)

[Thread Index] [Top] [All Lists]

June 30, 2006

Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Virgil, 15:26
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Virgil, 15:22
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, David R Tribble, 13:13
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:55
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:12
Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Frederick Williams, 10:45
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Patricia Shanahan, 08:49
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, albstorz, 08:22
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, albstorz, 08:19
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO, David C . Ullrich, 07:57
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO, un student, 06:40
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO, William Elliot, 05:50
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO, William Elliot, 05:23
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Peter Niessen, 04:21
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 04:06
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO, un student, 02:05
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 00:23

June 29, 2006

Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, darwinist, 22:22
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, David R Tribble, 19:32
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, tohentoon, 18:01
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, William of Ockham, 15:58
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, William of Ockham, 15:56
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Virgil, 14:43
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 12:57
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 12:53
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 11:48
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 11:23
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, george, 11:19
Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things), George Dance, 11:15
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, albstorz, 10:30
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 09:46
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 09:38
Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things), George Dance, 08:25
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO, un student, 07:43
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Patrick, 07:28
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 07:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:04
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO, William Elliot, 06:51
Connectivity of a graph in FO, un student, 05:25
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, David C . Ullrich, 05:05
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 01:33
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, MoeBlee, 01:18
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, imaginatorium, 01:07
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 00:48

June 28, 2006

Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things), MoeBlee, 23:07
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Kevin Karn, 22:55
Re: "Torkel Bashing", MoeBlee, 22:50
Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things), George Dance, 22:34
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Ralf Bader, 22:27
Re: Potential Things, MoeBlee, 22:26
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 22:16
Re: Potential Things, MoeBlee, 22:15
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Peter Webb, 21:49
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Aatu Koskensilta, 21:36
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Barb Knox, 21:32
Re: "Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things), MoeBlee, 21:15
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Aatu Koskensilta, 21:08
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 20:48
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, david petry, 20:45
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 20:42
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Aatu Koskensilta, 20:22
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, MoeBlee, 20:09
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 19:16
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 19:15
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Peter Niessen, 16:35
Re: sequence sum, David W . Cantrell, 14:53
sequence sum, karthik, 13:30
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 10:35
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 10:27
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Daryl McCullough, 10:09
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Frederick Williams, 10:03
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Kevin Karn, 09:29
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Aatu Koskensilta, 08:55
Re: "Torkel Bashing", David C . Ullrich, 08:45
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Daryl McCullough, 06:58
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, abo, 06:48
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, abo, 05:12
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Peter Webb, 03:12
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 02:38
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 02:37
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, R. Srinivasan, 02:04
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, R. Srinivasan, 01:47
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Kevin Karn, 00:54

June 27, 2006

Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, david petry, 23:34
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Peter Webb, 21:56
Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 18:31
Re: The World's 4 top priority problems as of 2006 and what to do about them, a_plutonium, 13:52
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, Immortalist, 13:09
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, examachine, 12:17
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, examachine, 11:33
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, examachine, 11:31
REFUTATION OF CT-THESIS FROM CLASSICAL LOGIC, LauLuna, 11:09
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 09:37
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Aatu Koskensilta, 09:02
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 08:47
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 08:31
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 08:10
Re: "Torkel Bashing", David C . Ullrich, 07:27
Re: The World's 4 top priority problems as of 2006 and what to do about them, Frederick Williams, 06:15

June 26, 2006

Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Barb Knox, 22:43
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 21:15
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, darwinist, 20:58
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, darwinist, 20:42
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, Brian Fletcher, 20:31
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 20:08
Thinking about the context, George Dance, 19:50
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, george, 19:04
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 17:56
Re: Roger Coppock debunks Global Cooling Re: WARNING! CRACKPOT ALERT!, Jik Bombo, 17:05
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Daryl McCullough, 14:43
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 13:25
Re: The World's 4 top priority problems as of 2006 and what to do about them, a_plutonium, 13:23
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 13:02
Re: "Torkel Bashing", George Dance, 12:42
IN ENGLISCH:A table of Mechanics. Schema:, NILS B�RJESSON, 12:26
IN SWEDISCH:Mekanikens indelning. Schema:, NILS B�RJESSON, 12:23
Re: "Torkel Bashing", george, 11:50
Re: Potential Things, george, 11:45
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, george, 11:41
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, Roger Johansson, 11:32
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, george, 11:19
Re: Potential Things, george, 11:06
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Frederick Williams, 10:41
Re: "Torkel Bashing", abo, 10:36
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Frederick Williams, 10:19
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 10:09
Re: Potential Things, David C . Ullrich, 09:51
Re: "Torkel Bashing", abo, 09:46
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 09:43
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 09:37
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Frederick Williams, 09:28
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, A N Niel, 09:27
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 09:26
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 09:14
Re: "Torkel Bashing", Aatu Koskensilta, 09:04
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, Brian Fletcher, 08:59
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 08:52
Re: Potential Things, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:29
Re: Potential Things, abo, 08:28
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 08:12
"Torkel Bashing" (was: Potential Things), George Dance, 07:54
Re: The World's 4 top priority problems as of 2006 and what to do about them, Frederick Williams, 07:37
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, donstockbauer, 07:36
Re: Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, Brian Fletcher, 07:23
Re: Potential Things, abo, 07:17
Re: Potential Things, David C . Ullrich, 06:54
Re: Roger Coppock debunks Global Cooling Re: WARNING! CRACKPOT ALERT!, Lloyd Parker, 06:35
Re: <=> same as <-> ?, Frederick Williams, 05:43
Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?, Rupert, 03:18
Aluminum Sequin to match the cool summer of 1992; Pinatuba Re: The World's 4 top priority problems as of 2006 and what to do about them, a_plutonium, 03:13
Why Computer Science is the Best Science for a Scientist, darwinist, 02:25

June 25, 2006

Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 22:36
Re: Roger Coppock debunks Global Cooling Re: WARNING! CRACKPOT ALERT!, Roger Coppock, 21:24
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 21:07
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 18:57
Psycho News Just for Jik Bombo : Today's Special: Murder-Suicides Violent Crimes, Psychopaths News Service, 18:18
Potential Things, George Dance, 18:07
Re: Roger Coppock debunks Global Cooling Re: WARNING! CRACKPOT ALERT!, Eric Swanson, 18:05
Re: Roger Coppock debunks Global Cooling Re: WARNING! CRACKPOT ALERT!, Jik Bombo, 17:27
Sociopath News Just for "Archimedes Plutonium" -- Special Treat: Murder-Suicides, Psychopaths News Service, 16:45
Roger Coppock debunks Global Cooling Re: WARNING! CRACKPOT ALERT!, a_plutonium, 16:34
Re: The UN needs a regime change SWAT team department Re: Japan, by sending ships to North Korea, is acting like a primitive M.A.D. Fleet and doing the correct thing, a_plutonium, 16:11
WARNING! CRACKPOT ALERT!, Roger Coppock, 15:57
The UN needs a regime change SWAT team department Re: Japan, by sending ships to North Korea, is acting like a primitive M.A.D. Fleet and doing the correct thing, a_plutonium, 15:47
The World's 4 top priority problems as of 2006 and what to do about them, a_plutonium, 15:33
East meets West, George Dance, 15:01
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, george, 14:48
Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement, Charlie-Boo, 14:37
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 14:25
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 14:08
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 13:59
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 13:55
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 13:37
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 12:41
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:36
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, georgedance04, 12:32
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 12:02
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 11:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 11:38
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 11:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 11:09
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 10:12
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 09:22
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 09:05
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 08:35
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Jan Burse, 08:31
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 08:22
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 08:04
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 07:58
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 07:44
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 07:27
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Jan Burse, 07:21
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 06:41
Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?, David C . Ullrich, 06:35
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 06:35
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 06:26
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 06:18
Japan, by sending ships to North Korea, is acting like a primitive M.A.D. Fleet and doing the correct thing, a_plutonium, 04:05

June 24, 2006

Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 23:15
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 22:11
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 21:55
Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement, Charlie-Boo, 21:41
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 21:32
Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement, Jan Burse, 21:06
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 21:04
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 20:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 19:44
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 19:37
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Charlie-Boo, 19:28
Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder, Charlie-Boo, 19:27
Re: the "Robotic Mule".........incredible Robotic achievement, Charlie-Boo, 19:23
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 18:53
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 18:22
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 17:56
Re: A universal introduction rule, Litania, 17:06
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Jan Burse, 16:43
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Jan Burse, 16:42
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 16:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 16:12
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 16:11
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Jan Burse, 15:31
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 15:11
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 14:54
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 14:38
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 14:30
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 14:01
Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?, mmweiss, 13:01
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 12:58
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 12:53
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 12:52
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 12:51
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 12:32
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, George Dance, 12:02
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 11:45
Re: When does p imply q?, Frederick Williams, 09:22
Re: CHRIST ARRESTED FOLLOWING DIVINE JOURNEY, HOLY MISSION, Kevin Cunningham, 08:15
Re: What's wrong with this argument in ZF?, David C . Ullrich, 07:35
Re: When does p imply q?, herbzet, 05:18
What's wrong with this argument in ZF?, mmweiss, 00:59
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 00:39
Re: CHRIST ARRESTED FOLLOWING DIVINE JOURNEY, HOLY MISSION, Zapanaz, 00:30

June 23, 2006

Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 23:07
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 22:58
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 22:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, cbrown, 22:40
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 22:26
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 20:39
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 20:36
Re: Torkel Franz�n is dead, Jack Campin - bogus address, 20:23
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [11], Conbra, 20:03
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 19:26
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 18:30
CHRIST ARRESTED FOLLOWING DIVINE JOURNEY, HOLY MISSION, Raymond Karczewski, 18:30
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 18:27
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 17:59
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 15:10
Re: A universal introduction rule, tohentoon, 13:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 13:16
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 13:05
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 13:02
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Pastor Kutchie, 12:01
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, abo, 11:16
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Peter Niessen, 10:24
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], george, 10:08
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, george, 09:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 09:30
Re: When does p imply q?, Newberry, 09:12
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Robert Low, 08:27
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, William Elliot, 08:16
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 07:45
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 07:42
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, William Elliot, 07:39
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 07:34
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 07:34
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 07:33
Re: A universal introduction rule, David C . Ullrich, 07:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 07:25
Re: post's correspondence problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 06:39
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Barb Knox, 06:14
Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder, John Jones, 04:52
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 04:50
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 04:48
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Robert Low, 04:47
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 04:10
Re: When does p imply q?, herbzet, 03:34
Re: When does p imply q?, herbzet, 03:33
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 03:23
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Barb Knox, 02:23
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 02:20
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 01:26
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 00:57
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 00:44
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 00:39
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 00:20

June 22, 2006

Re: When does p imply q?, Newberry, 23:47
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Barb Knox, 18:30
Re: Torkel Franzén is, MoeBlee, 14:50
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 14:39
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 14:36
post's correspondence problem, yarden . katz, 14:15
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 14:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 14:04
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 13:21
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Robert Low, 12:59
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Owen, 12:38
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Owen, 12:31
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 12:20
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 11:48
Re: A universal introduction rule, Litania, 09:07
Re: A universal introduction rule, David C . Ullrich, 08:20
Re: A universal introduction rule, David C . Ullrich, 08:10
Re: A universal introduction rule, Litania, 08:04
Re: A universal introduction rule, William Elliot, 07:38
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:30
Re: A universal introduction rule, Litania, 07:21
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 07:21
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:20
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:03
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 07:02
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, William Elliot, 06:38
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 06:24
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:10
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 06:03
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:47
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 05:46
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 05:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 05:16
Re: Mathematics greatest ontological blunder, Pastor Kutchie, 05:08
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, user13, 05:00
When does p imply q?, herbzet, 04:02
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 03:43
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 03:30
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 03:30
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 03:17
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 03:14
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Barb Knox, 00:39
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Nam Nguyen, 00:25

June 21, 2006

Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, William Elliot, 23:40
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 23:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 23:10
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, Nam Nguyen, 23:06
Re: A definition of 'two' (2) please?, William Elliot, 22:53
Re: A universal introduction rule, William Elliot, 22:19
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 20:29
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 20:27
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 20:23
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 20:10
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 20:05
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 20:03
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Chris Menzel, 19:57
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Chris Menzel, 19:51
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:51
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 19:50
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [9], Conbra, 19:40
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:21
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:14
A definition of 'two' (2) please?, John Jones, 18:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 18:45
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 17:18
Re: Sentential logic +, Owen, 16:35
Re: Sentential logic +, Jack Campin - bogus address, 16:00
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 15:12
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 15:12
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 15:10
Re: Sentential logic +, Owen, 14:49
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Chris Menzel, 13:32
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 13:27
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 13:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Chris Menzel, 13:24
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 13:23
A universal introduction rule, Litania, 12:09
Re: AN INCOMPATIBILITY OF STRONG AI, LauLuna, 11:13
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 10:18
Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8], makc . the . great, 09:09
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 07:24
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Robert Low, 07:22
Re: partial orders, David C . Ullrich, 07:16
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:45
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 06:41
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 06:34
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Robert Low, 04:36
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 04:22
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 03:37
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 03:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 02:55
Re: partial orders, William Elliot, 02:07
Re: partial orders, Arturo Magidin, 02:02
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:36
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:24
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:16
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:11
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:06

June 20, 2006

Re: partial orders, William Elliot, 23:44
Re: partial orders, Per Freem, 23:35
Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8], William Elliot, 22:53
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 21:50
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 21:17
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 21:10
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 21:01
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 20:41
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 20:33
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 20:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 20:18
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 20:14
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [8], Conbra, 19:31
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:20
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 18:59
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 17:58
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 17:42
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 16:41
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 16:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 16:26
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 16:20
Re: partial orders, Arturo Magidin, 16:08
Re: partial orders, tohentoon, 15:58
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Chris Menzel, 14:13
Re: partial orders, Arturo Magidin, 13:42
Re: partial orders, Per Freem, 13:23
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Joe Cool, 12:02
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, george, 11:51
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, george, 11:34
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 10:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 10:00
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 09:03
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 08:31
Re: partial orders, William Elliot, 08:14
Re: partial orders, David C . Ullrich, 07:45
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:04
Re: FO vs. FO(TC), Jan Burse, 05:45
Re: FO vs. FO(TC), Jan Burse, 05:39
Re: FO vs. FO(TC), Achim Blumensath, 04:51
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 04:42
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, 104, 04:41
Alexander Zinovjev, makc . the . great, 03:45
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, abo, 03:38
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:18
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 02:35

June 19, 2006

Re: partial orders, William Elliot, 23:09
partial orders, Per Freem, 21:39
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:23
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Conbra, 19:23
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 18:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 18:44
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 16:14
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Jack Campin - bogus address, 15:51
Re: Why?, MoeBlee, 14:55
Re: Why?, Alan Smaill, 14:37
Re: decidable, MoeBlee, 14:36
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Chris Menzel, 14:08
Re: decidable, MoeBlee, 14:02
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 13:53
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 13:39
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 09:21
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, David C . Ullrich, 07:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 06:46
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Jan Burse, 06:23
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Jan Burse, 06:21
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Jan Burse, 06:18
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:41
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 02:57
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 02:10
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 01:46
Intensional Boolean Logic, Newberry, 00:58

June 18, 2006

Re: Sentential logic +, Jack Campin - bogus address, 21:17
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Chris Menzel, 20:48
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Barb Knox, 20:08
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Conbra, 19:20
I n f i n i t i < ! >, INFINITI, 15:47
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 15:47
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 15:35
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 15:25
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 14:36
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 14:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:03
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 13:57
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 13:49
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 13:44
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, John Jones, 13:30
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 12:51
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 12:35
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 12:28
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 12:16
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Sean, 11:21
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 11:03
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Jan Burse, 07:00
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Jan Burse, 06:10
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Jan Burse, 06:07
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Kevin Karn, 03:35

June 17, 2006

Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 22:30
Re: decidable, bargiax, 21:49
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, William Elliot, 21:16
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 21:09
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Conbra, 21:07
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Conbra, 21:04
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 20:36
Re: decidable, bargiax, 19:23
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 18:21
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 18:03
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 17:50
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, John Jones, 15:10
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, John Jones, 15:10
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 14:33
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, extropy1, 14:30
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, extropy1, 14:26
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 14:25
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, extropy1, 14:23
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 14:21
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, extropy1, 14:19
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 14:08
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 11:36
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 11:23
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, David, 10:33
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 09:51
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 09:45
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Paul Holbach, 09:37
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, Peter_Smith, 06:29
Re: Frege: Reason's nearest kin, William of Ockham, 06:21
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Jan Burse, 05:59
Frege: Reason's nearest kin, ludolphine, 05:34
Re: Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, William Elliot, 02:07

June 16, 2006

Solving equation on Concept Algebra--Answer One a Question, Conbra, 21:12
Re: decidable, MoeBlee, 19:44
Re: decidable, bargiax, 19:30
Re: decidable, MoeBlee, 19:18
Re: decidable, bargiax, 18:47
Re: defying physics;please explain, tgdenning, 18:23
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Kaniishka, 17:28
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Bryan Olson, 16:47
Re: decidable, MoeBlee, 16:26
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Robert Cohen, 15:55
AN INCOMPATIBILITY OF STRONG AI, LauLuna, 15:52
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, John Jones, 15:49
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, John Jones, 15:41
decidable, bargiax, 15:26
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Immortalist, 12:47
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Immortalist, 12:38
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Sean, 12:29
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Immortalist, 12:26
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Immortalist, 12:23
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, recordmymind, 12:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 11:12
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 10:47
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Chris Menzel, 10:27
FO vs. FO(TC), un student, 09:24
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 08:48
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 08:43
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, David C . Ullrich, 08:24
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, David C . Ullrich, 08:18
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, David C . Ullrich, 08:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 07:52
Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [2], Jan Burse, 06:36
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Frederick Williams, 06:13
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Frederick Williams, 06:07
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Frederick Williams, 06:00
Re: Take A Break..Making $20,000.00 using E-Gold (100% legal), lycquan, 04:38
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Aatu Koskensilta, 02:52
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 02:49
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 02:34
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Aatu Koskensilta, 01:48
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 01:17
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Chris Menzel, 01:11
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, MoeBlee, 00:59
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Patricia Shanahan, 00:32
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 00:16

June 15, 2006

Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 23:21
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 22:55
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 22:43
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 22:38
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 22:14
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Frederick Williams, 22:06
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Patricia Shanahan, 22:00
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 21:55
Re: defying physics;please explain, barryh46au, 21:48
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 21:20
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Michael Gray, 21:09
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:18
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 18:47
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Patricia Shanahan, 17:59
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, MoeBlee, 17:51
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, John Jones, 17:25
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Patricia Shanahan, 16:30
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, MoeBlee, 15:50
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Mark Donovan, 15:35
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Aatu Koskensilta, 15:29
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, John Jones, 15:10
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 14:45
Re: "Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Jeffrey Ketland, 14:18
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 13:59
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 13:51
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 13:34
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Bryan Olson, 12:58
"Theorem" in Mendelson ?, Question, 12:43
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:34
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Immortalist, 12:12
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 12:02
Re: Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Lee, 12:01
Reincarnation - Scars & Birthmarks, Proof or Fallacy, Immortalist, 11:46
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, recordmymind, 10:37
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, David C . Ullrich, 10:20
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:04
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Robert Low, 10:01
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:49
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 09:24
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, recordmymind, 08:52
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:37
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Aatu Koskensilta, 08:11
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, David C . Ullrich, 07:54
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 07:48
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 07:42
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Aatu Koskensilta, 06:16
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:59
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 05:16
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 04:58
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 04:46
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 03:50
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, abo, 01:37
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, abo, 01:21

June 14, 2006

Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, david petry, 19:27
Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types, Blake Manner, 17:43
Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types, Blake Manner, 17:42
Re: Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??, Blake Manner, 17:40
4. Land mammal-whale transition, NILS B�RJESSON, 16:09
Mathematics greatest ontological blunder, John Jones, 16:00
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 15:43
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 15:38
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 15:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Owen, 15:19
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:00
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Aatu Koskensilta, 13:33
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 13:27
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Aatu Koskensilta, 13:16
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, recordmymind, 12:54
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 12:40
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:59
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 09:19
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 08:31
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:46
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Timothy Murphy, 07:41
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:04
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 06:45
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, David C . Ullrich, 06:29
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 06:01
Re: completeness of predicate calculus, Jack Campin - bogus address, 05:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 04:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, R. Srinivasan, 03:05
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 02:09
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 01:19
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 01:05
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 00:53

June 13, 2006

Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 21:39
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 21:19
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 20:40
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, examachine, 19:58
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [2], Conbra, 19:38
Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [1], Conbra, 19:37
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, recordmymind, 10:15
Re: Atomic Formulas, Atomic Sentences, Atomic Theories, and Atomic Structures, Bertie Reed, 07:46
Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types, Bertie Reed, 07:21
Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types, Blake Manner, 06:41
Re: H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, David C . Ullrich, 05:24
Re: Atomic Formulas, Atomic Sentences, Atomic Theories, and Atomic Structures, John Jones, 04:10
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 04:00
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 03:08
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 02:44
Re: Why?, MoeBlee, 00:32
Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [1], William Elliot, 00:29

June 12, 2006

Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 23:28
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 22:05
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 21:39
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [1], Conbra, 21:38
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Timothy Murphy, 20:31
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 19:43
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 19:16
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 18:39
Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!, Patricia Shanahan, 18:14
Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!, John Jones, 17:49
LCC'06 submissions deadline extended to June 15, royer, 16:01
Re: Problems with proof (propositional calculus), Jack Campin - bogus address, 15:09
OMEGA of the thermal field, T=2.7 K is 2/3, NILS B�RJESSON, 14:39
H. Enderton's proof that theory of natural numbers with successor admits elimination of quantifiers, recordmymind, 14:11
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Scott, 13:57
Re: Why?, Alan Smaill, 11:48
Re: Why?, Alan Smaill, 11:42
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], georgie, 08:10
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:45
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:31
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:18
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 02:35
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Jan Burse, 02:32
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 02:08
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 01:46
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 01:38
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 01:04
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 00:49

June 11, 2006

Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 23:50
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 23:41
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 23:37
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 23:18
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 23:13
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 23:06
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 22:47
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 22:44
Re: Derivation Problem, Logic Noob, 22:36
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 22:07
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 22:00
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 21:44
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Nam Nguyen, 21:11
Re: Universal Generalization, MoeBlee, 21:06
Re: Universal Generalization, MoeBlee, 21:03
Re: Universal Generalization, MoeBlee, 20:57
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Jack Campin - bogus address, 20:50
Re: Universal Generalization, Newberry, 20:47
Re: Derivation Problem, Jack Campin - bogus address, 20:43
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 20:29
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 20:18
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 20:11
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 19:49
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:47
Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!, Charlie-Boo, 19:35
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:33
Re: Derivation Problem, Logic Noob, 19:31
Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!, Jan Burse, 19:29
Sixteenth new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 19:28
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:27
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 19:23
Re: Universal Generalization, Owen, 19:15
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, MoeBlee, 19:11
Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!, John Jones, 19:02
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 18:51
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 18:16
Universal Generalization, Newberry, 15:17
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 14:06
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 13:24
Re: Fun Things about Largest Numbers!, Charlie-Boo, 13:08
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 13:02
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 12:45
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 12:07
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 11:17
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 10:34
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Patricia Shanahan, 10:34
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Charlie-Boo, 10:10
Re: Qualia and Numerals, Kevin Karn, 09:10
Re: about law of excluded middle, MoeBlee, 09:09
Re: about law of excluded middle, Frederick Williams, 08:57
Re: about law of excluded middle, MoeBlee, 08:56
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 08:12
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 08:05
Re: Why?, MoeBlee, 07:24
Re: about law of excluded middle, William Elliot, 06:34
about law of excluded middle, Per Freem, 03:14

June 10, 2006

Atomic Formulas, Atomic Sentences, Atomic Theories, and Atomic Structures, Blake Manner, 21:54
Re: Derivation Problem, Jeffrey Ketland, 20:56
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Russell Easterly, 19:28
Re: Derivation Problem, Conbra, 19:14
Advantages of mathematical 'finitism', John Jones, 18:40
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 18:32
Fifteenth new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 18:25
Re: A constructivist review of Number, John Jones, 17:51
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Patricia Shanahan, 16:43
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], george, 15:52
Derivation Problem, Logic Noob, 14:17
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 11:22
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, David C . Ullrich, 07:51
Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Conbra, 02:53
Re: Qualia and Numerals, Stephen Harris, 00:42

June 09, 2006

Re: Qualia and Numerals, Stephen Harris, 23:55
Fourteenth new law from the premises of syllogism is as follows, Conbra, 21:25
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Paul Holbach, 20:37
Proposition, jonthn, 18:57
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Chris Menzel, 18:16
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 18:10
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 18:05
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, george, 17:53
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Chris Menzel, 17:52
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 17:49
A constructivist approach to Sets, John Jones, 17:43
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 17:43
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Scott, 17:30
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Scott, 16:53
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Scott, 16:27
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 15:15
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 15:07
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Chris Menzel, 13:33
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 13:24
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 13:23
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 13:02
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Chris Menzel, 13:01
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Chris Menzel, 12:52
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Scott, 12:52
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Jan Burse, 12:30
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Scott, 12:09
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Scott, 11:56
Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Patricia Shanahan, 11:18
Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Frederick Williams, 10:53
Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Jan Burse, 09:06
Re: Die Liste aller natürlichen Zahlen existiert NICHT, albstorz, 08:37
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, David C . Ullrich, 07:54
Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Conbra, 05:51
Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Jan Burse, 03:36
Qualia and Numerals, Kevin Karn, 02:05
Re: A constructivist review of Number, William Elliot, 00:32

June 08, 2006

Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Conbra, 21:08
Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 21:01
Re: Philosophical question about empty set, Patrick, 16:00
A constructivist review of Number, John Jones, 15:12
Philosophical question about empty set, Scott, 15:11
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], georgie, 14:42
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], george, 14:35
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], georgie, 14:25
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], george, 14:10
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Marconus, 13:59
Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Frederick Williams, 10:25
Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Frederick Williams, 10:19

June 07, 2006

Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Jan Burse, 22:16
Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Jan Burse, 22:15
Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 21:28
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, ghugle, 20:33
Re: resolution refutation problem, David Kinny, 20:33
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Rev. James Slaughter, 20:03
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Mgr Dry Martini, 19:52
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Barb Knox, 19:44
Fun Things about Largest Numbers!, John Jones, 17:49
Re: adding default rules to a theory in default logic, Jan Burse, 16:58
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Kyle, 16:34
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, MissSouth, 14:53
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], georgie, 14:52
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, prairie . squidman, 13:40
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, just john, 13:27
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Preacher Man SODDI, 13:20
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Rev. ErRoR, 13:20
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Preacher Man SODDI, 13:16
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, just john, 13:16
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, just john, 13:15
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Zapanaz, 13:09
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, scooter, 13:07
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Rev. Lee Austin, 13:01
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, sav, 12:52
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, sav, 12:51
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Greg Preston, 12:48
Re: adding default rules to a theory in default logic, Per Freem, 12:40
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!! <-- what utter bullshit. And WTF is this doing posted to rec.music.beatles, anyway?, Phoenix Psaltery, 12:13
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Roy. Just Roy., 11:28
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Capt. Zeston Norelco, 11:24
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Razna, 10:56
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, xtians-r-stupid@xxxxxxxxxxx, 10:37
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Kyle, 10:01
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Zapanaz, 09:54
Re: resolution refutation problem, Tommy Str�mhaug, 09:46
Re: resolution refutation problem, David Kinny, 08:59
Re: CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Rev. James Slaughter, 07:51
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 07:08
CHRISTHOOD 101: I AM JESUS OF NAZARETH REINCARNATED!!, Raymond Karczewski, 06:54
Re: resolution refutation problem, William Elliot, 04:52
Re: Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Frederick Williams, 04:00

June 06, 2006

Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Ross A. Finlayson, 23:52
Eleventh new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 20:26
Re: adding default rules to a theory in default logic, Jan Burse, 18:24
Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment, John Jones, 18:13
adding default rules to a theory in default logic, Per Freem, 17:22
Re: FO logic without equality, Alan Smaill, 11:18
Re: Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??, Bertie Reed, 08:53
Re: resolution refutation problem, Tommy Str�mhaug, 08:18
Re: resolution refutation problem, David Kinny, 08:00
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:54
Re: resolution refutation problem, William Elliot, 04:36
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 00:05

June 05, 2006

Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Jan Burse, 21:00
Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Jan Burse, 20:42
Re: A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Jan Burse, 20:41
Re: Tenth new law from the premises of syllogism, Jan Burse, 20:31
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Pietro, 19:30
Re: Tenth new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 19:08
A Revolution of Logic Reasoning--A Method of Law Free Reasoning, Conbra, 18:26
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 18:17
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, mikegordge, 16:26
Model Theory and Combinatorics and Crytography??, Blake Manner, 15:48
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, Edward Grefenstette, 15:04
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, BuddhaThu, 14:43
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, BuddhaThu, 14:37
resolution refutation problem, Tommy Str�mhaug, 14:07
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], george, 13:55
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 13:36
Re: FO logic without equality, Alan Smaill, 12:09
Re: FO logic without equality, Alan Smaill, 11:58
Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment, LauLuna, 11:57
Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE, LauLuna, 11:20
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 07:08
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:57
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 06:52
Re: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Dennett), Sir Frederick, 02:32

June 04, 2006

Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment, LauLuna, 14:59
Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE, LauLuna, 14:24
Re: What are the values of 2-valued logic?, David C . Ullrich, 14:04
Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE, LauLuna, 14:00
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Patricia Shanahan, 13:51
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 11:18
Re: defying physics;please explain, R.H. Allen, 11:11
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 11:08
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 10:59
What are the values of 2-valued logic?, Owen, 10:55
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 10:47
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 10:34
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 10:27
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 08:27
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 08:23
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, Roger Johansson, 08:18
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 08:11
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, mikegordge, 08:05
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 08:05
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, Roger Johansson, 07:55
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 07:17
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 07:12
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, roastfreesteel, 07:11
Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment, John Jones, 05:28

June 03, 2006

Re: Ninth new law from the premises of syllogism, Barb Knox, 22:44
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, george, 22:12
Ninth new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 20:48
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Patricia Shanahan, 20:31
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 20:24
Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment, Charlie, 20:23
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, george, 20:23
Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment, John Jones, 19:40
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 18:51
Re: defying physics;please explain, hunnma, 17:58
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 17:56
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 17:49
Re: defying physics;please explain, Hatunen, 17:37
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 17:30
Re: defying physics;please explain, george, 17:10
Re: Mathematical objects and Discernment, LauLuna, 17:10
Re: omega consistency, Keith Ramsay, 16:22
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, Immortalist, 15:42
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, John Jones, 15:29
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, John Jones, 15:26
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 14:47
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, BuddhaThu, 14:45
Re: FO logic without equality, Keith Ramsay, 14:40
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, BuddhaThu, 14:34
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 14:31
Mathematical objects and Discernment, John Jones, 14:12
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 14:04
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 14:02
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 13:45
Re: defying physics;please explain, hunnma, 12:12
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 11:45
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 11:36
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 11:24
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Newberry, 11:20
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 11:14
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Patricia Shanahan, 11:13
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 11:11
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 11:08
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 11:05
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 10:58
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 09:45
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 07:10
Re: Assistance required, David C . Ullrich, 07:04
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 07:04
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 07:00
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:55
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:26
Re: omega consistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:48
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 04:45
Re: Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types, Bertie Reed, 04:19
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 03:04
Re: defying physics;please explain, Denis Loubet, 02:55
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Pietro, 02:11
Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix, Pietro, 00:51
Infinitely Many Complete 1-Types, Blake Manner, 00:40

June 02, 2006

Re: defying physics;please explain, Dan Bloomquist, 23:56
Re: Assistance required, William Elliot, 23:31
Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Dennett), Immortalist, 21:14
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, george, 20:50
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, george, 20:41
Re: defying physics;please explain, Matt Giwer, 20:31
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, oneblackline, 19:36
Re: defying physics;please explain, Allan Matthews, 18:28
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 18:06
Re: defying physics;please explain, Pooh Bear, 16:34
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, Bret Cahill, 16:32
defying physics;please explain, hunnma, 16:20
Re: The Drinkers' Paradox, Immortalist, 15:39
Re: Axioms of Boolean Algebra got from Concept Algebra, george, 15:29
The Drinkers' Paradox, BuddhaThu, 14:21
Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix, Michael De, 14:07
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, george, 14:01
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, Blake Manner, 11:22
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:16
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Daryl McCullough, 11:12
Assistance required, nijerian, 10:45
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Newberry, 09:53
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Nam Nguyen, 09:45
Our Heavenly Father on 9-14-05 at 11:17 A.M., norttene, 09:28
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 07:24
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 06:39
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, David C . Ullrich, 06:18
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, David C . Ullrich, 06:15
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, David C . Ullrich, 06:15
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:12
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:04
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Keith Ramsay, 03:55
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, Achim Blumensath, 03:19
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, Achim Blumensath, 03:17
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, Bertie Reed, 03:15
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, Bertie Reed, 03:06
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:05
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Nam Nguyen, 03:01
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Aatu Koskensilta, 02:20
Re: Is Goedel's formula true?, Aatu Koskensilta, 02:15
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 02:00
Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix, Pietro, 01:40
Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix, William Elliot, 01:36
Is Goedel's formula true?, Newberry, 00:06

June 01, 2006

Validity of formulas with a certain prefix, mordov, 20:02
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 17:24
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 16:57
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 16:10
Re: Finitely Many Complete Types, blakman211, 12:37
Finitely Many Complete Types, blakman211, 12:35
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:15
Re: FO logic without equality, Alan Smaill, 11:14
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 09:53
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, blakman211, 09:46
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, blakman211, 09:42
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, David C . Ullrich, 09:13
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, Achim Blumensath, 07:39
Re: Two questions on First order Model Theory, David C . Ullrich, 06:54
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:31
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, David C . Ullrich, 06:28
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:48
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:28
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 04:58
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, MoeBlee, 04:42
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 01:53
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 01:50
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 00:31

May 31, 2006

Re: FO logic without equality, Li Yi, 22:31
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 21:12
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 21:08
Re: Fifth new law from the premises of syllogism, William Elliot, 21:06
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 21:06
Re: Vagueness Again, William Elliot, 21:05
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 20:59
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, William Elliot, 20:58
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 20:49
[FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web, Boris 'pi' Piwinger, 20:03
Fifth new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 19:21
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 18:51
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, John Jones, 17:59
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 17:56
Two questions on First order Model Theory, blakman211, 17:38
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 17:36
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 17:32
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 14:59
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], george, 14:18
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], george, 14:18
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 14:02
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], george, 14:02
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 13:37
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 13:08
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], georgie, 10:32
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 10:03
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 10:00
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 09:59
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 07:41
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 07:13
Re: Vagueness Again, tjb, 07:01
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:57
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 06:47
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 06:47
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 06:40
Re: Third new law from the premises of syllogism, William Elliot, 05:33
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Russell Easterly, 04:57
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 04:52
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 04:36
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 04:12
Re: Third new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 03:01
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], apoorv, 02:23
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 01:46
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 00:52
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Daryl McCullough, 00:45
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Barb Knox, 00:08

May 30, 2006

Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 23:20
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 23:08
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Newberry, 22:45
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Ross A. Finlayson, 22:29
Re: Fourth new law from the premises of syllogism, William Elliot, 22:29
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, William Elliot, 22:26
Re: Third new law from the premises of syllogism, William Elliot, 22:25
Re: Integer Part (Floor) of Complex Number is A Real Number !!!!!!!!!!!, William Elliot, 22:16
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 21:20
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 20:53
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 20:18
Fourth new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 20:13
Re: Third new law from the premises of syllogism, Conbra, 19:59
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 19:06
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 19:04
Re: Is this right? (New model from old...), David C . Ullrich, 18:57
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 18:51
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 18:21
Re: Vagueness Again, John Jones, 17:32
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, John Jones, 17:29
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, John Jones, 17:25
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 17:22
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], david petry, 16:52
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], MoeBlee, 16:27
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], Russell Easterly, 15:55
Re: Axioms of Boolean Algebra got from Concept Algebra, george, 15:51
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 15:37
Re: Is this right? (New model from old...), Jeffrey Ketland, 15:07
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], georgie, 14:04
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, Paul Holbach, 13:05
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 12:23
Re: FO logic without equality, Alan Smaill, 12:09
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 11:52
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 11:47
Re: FO logic without equality, Jan Burse, 11:28
Re: Integer Part (Floor) of Complex Number is A Real Number !!!!!!!!!!!, Mohamed Al-Dabbagh, 11:25
Re: Is this right? (New model from old...), David C . Ullrich, 11:00
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 10:58
Re: FO logic without equality, David C . Ullrich, 10:57
Re: Vagueness Again, William Elliot, 10:57
Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?], William of Ockham, 10:47
Re: Vagueness Again, tjb, 10:01
Re: Vagueness Again, tjb, 10:00
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, tjb, 09:55
Re: Vagueness Again, John Jones, 09:43
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, John Jones, 09:37
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, tjb, 09:29
Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE, Daryl McCullough, 09:28
Re: Vagueness Again, tjb, 09:27
Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE, Daryl McCullough, 09:25
Re: Vague or Ambiguous?, tjb, 09:24
Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE, Daryl McCullough, 09:09
Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE, abo, 08:26
Re: FO logic without equality, Li Yi, 08:25
Re: NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST STRONG AI. A CHALLENGE, LauLuna, 07:38