sci.logic (date)

sci.logic (date)

[Thread Index] [Top] [All Lists]

July 31, 2006

Re: non-standard model of PA, fjmd1a, 13:54
Re: Does Science give us knowledge about reality?, Ankmin, 13:50
Re: non-standard model of PA, Chris Menzel, 12:57
Re: non-standard model of PA, fjmd1a, 11:04
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), H. J. Sander Bruggink, 08:22
Re: non-standard model of PA, Frederick Williams, 07:53
Re: non-standard model of PA, fjmd1a, 07:30
Re: Logic in USSR, George Dance, 06:24
Re: When does p imply q (redux)?, herbzet, 04:21
Re: When does p imply q (redux)?, herbzet, 04:09
Re: Does Science give us knowledge about reality?, Rupert, 02:12
Re: OT: Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, toto, 01:00

July 30, 2006

When does p imply q (redux)?, herbzet, 21:07
Re: Can we using formulas to know anything about the God ?, Ankmin, 21:06
Does Science give us knowledge about reality?, Ankmin, 20:54
Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence., Rupert, 19:15
Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence., berry, 17:03
Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence., ram . rachum, 06:54
Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence., Rupert, 04:51
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 04:11
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 04:02
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 04:00

July 29, 2006

Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat., The Ghost In The Machine, 23:00
Re: Logic in USSR, John Wilkins, 21:45
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Sumbuny, 19:45
Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence., Aatu Koskensilta, 15:47
Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence., ram . rachum, 15:42
Re: Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence., Aatu Koskensilta, 15:40
Some ambiguities about the Busy Beaver sequence., ram . rachum, 15:31
Re: Definablity of substructures and undecidable theories, Aatu Koskensilta, 15:02
Re: Definablity of substructures and undecidable theories, Isaac, 14:56
Re: Definablity of substructures and undecidable theories, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:50
Definablity of substructures and undecidable theories, Isaac, 14:46
Re: OT: Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, 'foolsrushin.', 13:22
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, 'foolsrushin.', 13:04
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, 'foolsrushin.', 12:41
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 12:04
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 11:56
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 11:54
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Todie, 11:43
Re: Logic in USSR, George Dance, 11:41
A cure for IBS, CROHNS, MS, CANCER ?, caesarjbsquitti, 10:56
Re: Logic in USSR, George Dance, 08:47
Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:40
Re: :: every belief is a nation without borders ::, George Dance, 08:26
Re: :: every belief is a nation without borders ::, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:11
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, David C . Ullrich, 07:26
Re: :: every belief is a nation without borders ::, George Dance, 07:22
Re: Logic in USSR, George Dance, 07:08
Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:44
Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega, William Elliot, 06:37
Re: :: every belief is a nation without borders ::, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:34
Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:31
Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega, Blake Manner, 06:22
Re: Choice function over finite sets, MoeBlee, 01:27
Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega, Patricia Shanahan, 00:58
Re: OPEN Invitation, William Elliot, 00:34
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Jerry Beeler, 00:21
Re: Arbitrary subsets of omega, William Elliot, 00:11

July 28, 2006

Re: Choice function over finite sets, Virgil, 23:39
Arbitrary subsets of omega, Blake Manner, 22:50
Re: :: every belief is a nation without borders ::, lorad474, 21:43
Re: :: every belief is a nation without borders ::, Aatu Koskensilta, 21:12
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Russell Easterly, 20:24
Re: :: every belief is a nation without borders ::, mikegordge, 18:51
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Todie, 18:31
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Todie, 18:15
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Todie, 18:04
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Todie, 18:01
OPEN Invitation, ahmedat, 17:45
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Wilbur Slice, 17:41
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 17:40
:: every belief is a nation without borders ::, galathaea, 17:37
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 17:28
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Todie, 17:26
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 17:14
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 17:09
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 17:01
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Mitch, 16:50
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 16:47
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 16:24
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Jan Burse, 16:08
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 16:04
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Jerry Beeler, 12:43
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 11:28
Re: OT: Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Frederick Williams, 10:13
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Wilbur Slice, 09:43
Re: OT: Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, racqueteer, 08:32
Re: OT: Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, racqueteer, 08:27
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Jerry Beeler, 04:20
Can we using formulas to know anything about the God ?, socratus, 03:16
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Joe, 03:02
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Serial Killfiler, 00:19

July 27, 2006

Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Rowley, 21:55
Re: OT: Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Jerry Beeler, 20:39
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Mitch, 16:22
Re: Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Sumbuny, 16:01
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Sumbuny, 15:57
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 13:34
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 13:04
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 12:50
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Jerry Beeler, 12:25
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Mitch, 12:19
Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering, Dmitry Sustretov <dmitry.sustretov@xxxxxxxxx>, 12:07
Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, Wilbur Slice, 10:06
Re: OT: Re: Is it easy to be a teacher?, racqueteer, 09:36
Re: Elementary substructures., Blake Manner, 09:06
Re: Elementary substructures., Dmitry Sustretov <dmitry.sustretov@xxxxxxxxx>, 08:16

July 25, 2006

Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering, fred . galvin, 20:46
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:33
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 19:56
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 19:46
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:44
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 18:34
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 18:23
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 17:29
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 16:37
Re: Elementary substructures., Aatu Koskensilta, 16:35
Re: Logic in USSR, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:03
Re: Logic in USSR, Herman Jurjus, 13:53
Re: The List of All Lists, Jonathan Hoyle, 13:35
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 13:31
Re: Question on Conservative Extensions, Blake Manner, 13:00
Re: Question on Conservative Extensions, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:46
Re: Elementary substructures., Aatu Koskensilta, 12:40
Re: Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:36
Elementary substructures., Blake Manner, 12:34
Linear Ordering vs Well Ordering, Blake Manner, 12:31
Question on Conservative Extensions, Blake Manner, 12:23
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 12:20
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 09:53
Re: Logic in USSR, David C . Ullrich, 08:01
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, David C . Ullrich, 07:58
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Rupert, 04:13
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 03:31
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 03:24
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 03:02
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 02:39
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 01:50
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 01:34
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 01:09
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 00:37
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 00:36
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 00:25
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 00:08

July 24, 2006

Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 23:58
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 23:31
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 23:19
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 22:27
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 22:06
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 21:54
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 21:48
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 21:45
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 21:00
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 20:36
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:09
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 19:50
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 19:49
Re: Logic in USSR, herbzet, 12:25
Re: Logic in USSR, Karl Malbrain, 12:15
Re: Logic in USSR, Jack Campin - bogus address, 12:05
Re: Logic in USSR, Frederick Williams, 09:52
Re: Natural numbers, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:34
Re: Logic in USSR, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:17
Re: Logic in USSR, David C . Ullrich, 09:16
Re: Logic in USSR, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:16
Re: Logic in USSR, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:13
Re: Logic in USSR, William Elliot, 09:05
Re: Logic in USSR, William Elliot, 09:04
Re: Logic in USSR, jaykov, 08:56
Re: Logic in USSR, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:46
Re: Logic in USSR, jaykov, 08:37
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 08:24
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 08:17
Logic in USSR, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:06
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 07:33
Re: The List of All Lists, Frederick Williams, 06:35
Re: The List of All Lists, Jeremy Boden, 04:30
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Rupert, 03:17
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 03:12
Re: The List of All Lists, Virgil, 03:04
Re: The List of All Lists, Rupert, 02:49
Re: The List of All Lists, Rupert, 02:48
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 02:42
Re: The List of All Lists, Russell Easterly, 02:39
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 02:21
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 02:12
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 02:09
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 02:08

July 23, 2006

Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat., John Jones, 10:16
Re: The List of All Lists, kunzmilan, 06:14
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 05:37
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 05:21
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 00:49
Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat., The Ghost In The Machine, 00:00

July 22, 2006

Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 23:18
Re: Curing ulcers, IBS, CROHNS, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SCHIZOPHRENIA, CANCER...?, Frederick Williams, 21:14
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 13:54
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 13:29
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 13:06
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Dave L. Renfro, 12:52
Curing ulcers, IBS, CROHNS, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SCHIZOPHRENIA, CANCER...?, caesarjbsquitti, 11:22
Re: Natural numbers, Frederick Williams, 11:00
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, herbzet, 10:41
Re: Choice function over finite sets, MoeBlee, 10:01
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 08:50
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Peter Webb, 08:22
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 07:10
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 06:45
Re: Choice function over finite sets, MoeBlee, 06:41
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, David C . Ullrich, 06:37
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Rupert, 05:36
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 05:19
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Peter Webb, 03:41
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 03:28
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 02:59
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 02:44
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 02:35
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Rupert, 02:26
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Rupert, 02:22
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 02:06
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 00:25
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 00:18
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 00:01

July 21, 2006

Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 23:52
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 19:48
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 15:07
Re: mu-operator, tac-tics, 14:50
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 14:39
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 14:16
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 14:14
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 14:13
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 14:08
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Peter Webb, 13:52
Re: The List of All Lists, Jonathan Hoyle, 13:34
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Dave L. Renfro, 13:01
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 12:14
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Jiri Lebl, 11:42
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:16
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 10:52
Re: The List of All Lists, stush, 10:52
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Peter Webb, 09:44
Re: non-standard model of PA, fjmd1a, 07:36
Re: The List of All Lists, Rupert, 06:38
Re: The List of All Lists, Patricia Shanahan, 06:33
Re: The List of All Lists, Patricia Shanahan, 06:30
Re: The List of All Lists, Patricia Shanahan, 06:10
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, David C . Ullrich, 06:01
Re: The List of All Lists, Mike Kelly, 05:13
Re: The List of All Lists, Mike Kelly, 05:13
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 04:58
Re: The List of All Lists, Han de Bruijn, 04:56
Re: The List of All Lists, Virgil, 04:08
Re: The List of All Lists, Virgil, 03:49
Re: The List of All Lists, Virgil, 03:42
Re: The List of All Lists, Virgil, 03:41
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 03:06
Re: The List of All Lists, Rupert, 02:24
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 02:19
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 02:16
Re: The List of All Lists, Russell Easterly, 02:16
Re: The List of All Lists, Rupert, 01:46
Re: Completely lost .., William Elliot, 01:46
Re: The List of All Lists, Russell Easterly, 01:35
Re: The List of All Lists, Rupert, 01:30
Re: The List of All Lists, Russell Easterly, 01:28
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 01:23
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 01:14
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 01:01
Re: The List of All Lists, Patricia Shanahan, 00:53
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Rupert, 00:35
Re: The List of All Lists, Rupert, 00:28
The List of All Lists, Russell Easterly, 00:21
Re: Choice function over finite sets, Peter Webb, 00:20
Re: Choice function over finite sets, smnewberger, 00:01

July 20, 2006

Re: Choice function over finite sets, Rupert, 23:53
Choice function over finite sets, Peter Webb, 23:28
Re: help, can someone help me with one equation, Frederick Williams, 22:00
Re: mu-operator, Frederick Williams, 21:29
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 20:28
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 20:26
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Rupert, 20:23
Re: mu-operator, Rupert, 20:22
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 20:20
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:31
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Jack Campin - bogus address, 18:50
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 17:42
Re: Completely lost .., John Jones, 17:16
Re: Completely lost .., John Jones, 17:14
Re: Completely lost .., John Jones, 17:14
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 16:57
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 16:54
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 16:45
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, R. Srinivasan, 15:20
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, R. Srinivasan, 12:53
Re: help, can someone help me with one equation, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:46
help, can someone help me with one equation, Alicia, 12:42
Re: mu-operator, bargiax, 12:31
Re: Completely lost .., Frederick Williams, 10:45
Re: mu-operator, Frederick Williams, 10:18
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 09:22
Re: A universal introduction rule, wit, 09:14
Re: A universal introduction rule, wit, 09:10
Re: A universal introduction rule, wit, 09:02
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 07:44
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 07:12
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, David C . Ullrich, 06:17
Re: mu-operator, Rupert, 05:50
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 02:11
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 01:30
Re: DNF to CNF, No Way, 01:26

July 19, 2006

Re: mu-operator, William Elliot, 23:48
Re: Completely lost .., William Elliot, 23:43
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 23:41
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), galathaea, 23:27
mu-operator, bargiax, 21:06
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 21:03
Re: Completely lost .., Barb Knox, 20:40
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:35
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 20:21
Re: Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Rupert, 20:18
an interesting pattern, digorysulkirk, 18:28
Question Regarding the Definition of Cantor's Set, Scott, 17:49
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 17:42
Completely lost .., John Jones, 17:24
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 15:17
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 14:34
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Jack Campin - bogus address, 13:56
Re: Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:43
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), Jack Crenshaw, 10:35
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, herbzet, 10:19
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:10
Re: Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:07
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, luiroto, 10:03
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 08:54
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Robert J. Kolker, 08:38
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, R. Srinivasan, 07:49
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 07:34
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 07:30
Re: Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:30
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 07:12
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, abo, 06:58
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 06:42
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, abo, 03:40
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, R. Srinivasan, 03:02
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, R. Srinivasan, 02:53
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 02:52
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 02:28
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, R. Srinivasan, 02:19
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, R. Srinivasan, 01:52
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 01:51
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 01:18
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 01:08
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), galathaea, 01:03
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 00:47

July 18, 2006

Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 22:54
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Nam Nguyen, 22:26
Re: Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles, Alan Smaill, 21:59
Re: FOL & completeness, Frederick Williams, 21:54
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 21:31
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, herbzet, 21:17
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 21:12
Re: Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles, Rupert, 20:54
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 20:47
Re: Inside or Outside ?, bargiax, 20:37
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 20:31
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:26
Re: FOL & completeness, Rupert, 20:18
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 20:03
Re: Question on strength of Robinson's Q, Rupert, 19:57
Re: Inside or Outside ?, Rupert, 19:52
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 18:31
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 18:27
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 18:26
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 18:15
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 18:08
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 18:05
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 17:15
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 17:09
Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat., John Jones, 17:09
Re: String and Language, John Jones, 17:07
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 17:05
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Aatu Koskensilta, 16:28
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 16:18
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 16:15
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 15:50
Re: Hofstadter's _GEB_ -- Help with number theory, Dan Christensen, 15:38
Re: String and Language, John Jones, 14:30
Re: Hofstadter's _GEB_ -- Help with number theory, Peter Webb, 14:15
Re: Hofstadter's _GEB_ -- Help with number theory, donstockbauer, 14:14
Inside or Outside ?, bargiax, 13:57
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 13:44
Question on strength of Robinson's Q, espoors, 13:44
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 13:39
An Interesting Subject, theo3, 13:39
Re: String and Language, Jan Burse, 13:38
Hofstadter's _GEB_ -- Help with number theory, Daniel al-Autistiqui, 13:33
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Gerard Schildberger, 13:26
Re: FOL & completeness, Aatu Koskensilta, 13:10
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 13:02
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 12:32
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, abo, 12:29
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 12:16
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 11:49
Kanamori on Kreisel and Levy on uniform reflection principles, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:42
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Robert J. Kolker, 11:41
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Robert J. Kolker, 11:40
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Robert J. Kolker, 11:39
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, R. Srinivasan, 10:58
Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat., Frederick Williams, 10:52
Re: TeX for logic., Frederick Williams, 10:48
Re: TeX for logic., Frederick Williams, 10:47
DNF to CNF, alexander.stuckenholz@xxxxxxxxx, 10:41
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, R. Srinivasan, 10:15
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 09:46
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 09:20
Re: String and Language, kunzmilan, 08:49
Re: String and Language, John Jones, 08:12
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 07:47
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 07:27
Re: FOL & completeness, Frederick Williams, 07:19
GeneXproTools 4.0 - GEP modeling tools for Math and Boolean problems, Candida Ferreira, 06:52
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 06:51
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Aatu Koskensilta, 06:46
Re: Do The Math: Save Gas By Driving Slower!, Frederick Williams, 06:42
Re: FOL & completeness, Frederick Williams, 06:38
Re: FOL & completeness, Frederick Williams, 06:34
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 06:24
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 05:45
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 05:17
OT: Re: Do The Math: Save Gas By Driving Slower!, Peter Webb, 01:49
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 00:53
Re: Do The Math: Save Gas By Driving Slower!, William Elliot, 00:09

July 17, 2006

Do The Math: Save Gas By Driving Slower!, virtualadepts, 23:57
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 22:37
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 22:37
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:21
Re: The mathematicians Magic Hat., Nam Nguyen, 19:17
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Rupert, 18:45
Re: FOL & completeness, Rupert, 18:40
Re: FOL & completeness, Rupert, 18:38
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 18:36
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 18:18
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 17:37
The mathematicians Magic Hat., John Jones, 17:04
Re: String and Language, Jan Burse, 16:54
Re: FOL & completeness, MoeBlee, 16:01
Re: FOL & completeness, MoeBlee, 15:59
Re: String and Language, John Jones, 15:51
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 15:11
Re: FOL & completeness, MoeBlee, 14:54
Re: FOL & completeness, MoeBlee, 14:49
Re: String and Language, Jan Burse, 14:32
Re: String and Language, John Jones, 13:23
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, abo, 12:54
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 12:44
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, george, 12:18
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 12:03
Re: FOL & completeness, Chris Menzel, 11:57
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 11:52
Re: TeX for logic., Jim, 10:22
Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?, Kevin Karn, 09:00
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 08:41
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:34
Re: Natural numbers, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:28
Re: Natural numbers, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:28
Re: non-standard model of PA, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:22
Re: FOL & completeness, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:18
Re: FOL & completeness, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:17
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 07:56
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 06:21
Re: TeX for logic., H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:18
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 03:32
Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?, Rupert, 01:49
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 01:31
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 01:11

July 16, 2006

Re: FOL & completeness, Rupert, 23:21
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Daryl McCullough, 22:55
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 22:31
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 22:22
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 22:13
Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?, Charlie, 21:45
Re: FOL & completeness, Frederick Williams, 21:43
Re: FOL & completeness, Frederick Williams, 21:39
Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?, Charlie, 21:14
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 21:01
Stephens Guid To THe Logical Fallacies, Patrick D. Rockwell, 20:53
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:51
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 19:39
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 19:36
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:08
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 17:53
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, abo, 17:44
Re: FOL & completeness, Pierre Asselin, 17:37
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 16:29
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 15:18
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 15:11
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 14:12
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 14:07
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 12:36
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 11:02
Re: Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?, rrw050, 10:59
Re: FOL & completeness, Frederick Williams, 08:53
Re: FOL & completeness, bargiax, 08:12
FOL & completeness, bargiax, 08:11
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 08:07
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 07:30
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, abo, 07:02
Re: non-standard model of PA, LordBeotian, 06:22
Re: what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?, Rupert, 06:10
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 03:31
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, abo, 01:53
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 01:30
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 00:47

July 15, 2006

Re: non-standard model of PA, Frederick Williams, 22:50
what does it mean to say a logic is more expressive than another?, Per Freem, 22:36
TeX for logic., Frederick Williams, 22:27
Re: non-standard model of PA, Frederick Williams, 22:09
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 22:00
Re: Natural numbers, george, 21:55
Re: Natural numbers, george, 21:52
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, george, 21:48
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 21:41
Re: Set Theory: Should you believe?, george, 21:25
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 21:09
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 20:45
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:15
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Rupert, 20:02
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 19:58
Re: Natural numbers, Jack Campin - bogus address, 19:52
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 19:44
Re: String and Language, Jan Burse, 19:30
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 17:57
Re: String and Language, John Jones, 17:42
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 17:01
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Newberry, 16:58
Re: non-standard model of PA, george, 16:04
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 15:46
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 14:58
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 14:48
Re: The God Paradox, Charlie-Boo, 14:12
Re: Natural numbers, LordBeotian, 13:31
Re: non-standard model of PA, LordBeotian, 13:28
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 12:06
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 11:59
Re: non-standard model of PA, Dan, 11:30
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 11:25
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Newberry, 11:06
Re: non-standard model of PA, Frederick Williams, 10:58
Re: Natural numbers, Frederick Williams, 10:07
non-standard model of PA, bargiax, 09:55
Re: Who Needs Hume's Principle?, Newberry, 09:48
Natural numbers, bargiax, 08:18
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 08:08
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 06:42
Re: The God Paradox, Jan Burse, 05:14
Re: The God Paradox, Jan Burse, 05:03
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Rupert, 04:42
Who Needs Hume's Principle?, abo, 01:53
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 01:50
Re: The God Paradox, William Elliot, 00:34

July 14, 2006

Re: The God Paradox, John Jones, 15:45
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, herbzet, 14:10
Easier solution to wiles´ one to the fermat congruence, elcaminodelbudainterior, 13:32
Re: Why?, MoeBlee, 12:15
The God Paradox, indoarsman, 10:36
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 09:52
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 08:22
Re: String and Language, Jan Burse, 06:51
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jan Burse, 06:49
Re: What is 'difference'?, William Elliot, 06:00
Re: What is 'difference'?, John Jones, 04:40
String and Language, John Jones, 04:33
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 04:14
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 03:19
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 03:14
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 02:28

July 13, 2006

Re: What is 'difference'?, William Elliot, 22:45
Re: functional extensions, mmweiss, 21:06
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:39
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 20:03
Re: functional extensions, mmweiss, 18:22
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), george, 18:13
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 18:10
What is 'difference'?, John Jones, 15:01
http://nonnewtoniancalculus.googlepages.com/home // Non-Newtonian Calculus, smithpith, 13:36
Re: Why?, Alan Smaill, 12:15
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 10:56
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Aatu Koskensilta, 08:17
Re: Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?, George Dance, 06:17
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 06:01

July 12, 2006

Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Rupert, 22:29
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 21:13
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 21:08
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), galathaea, 21:05
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 21:04
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:56
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Rupert, 20:55
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:50
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:44
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:35
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:16
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:12
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:03
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 19:41
Re: Request for link to proof for set theory proposition, Scott, 19:11
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 19:09
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 16:28
Re: Question concerning forms for defining sets, Scott, 14:35
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jan Burse, 10:43
Re: Proof theoretical consistency proofs (Was: Re: Existential, Universal Quantifiers, Generalize Booleans), Aatu Koskensilta, 10:30
Re: functional extensions, David C . Ullrich, 09:18
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 07:55
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 07:25
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 07:17
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 07:09
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jan Burse, 03:22
Re: Proof theoretical consistency proofs (Was: Re: Existential, Universal Quantifiers, Generalize Booleans), Herman Jurjus, 02:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 02:12
Re: NW vs. infinity, abo, 01:50
Re: NW vs. infinity, abo, 01:19

July 11, 2006

Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:45
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:42
Re: Question concerning forms for defining sets, William Elliot, 20:44
Re: Request for link to proof for set theory proposition, mmweiss, 20:21
functional extensions, mmweiss, 19:27
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 19:21
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:18
Re: NW vs. infinity, george, 18:44
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 18:42
Re: NW vs. infinity, george, 18:37
Re: NW vs. infinity, Rupert, 17:41
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Rupert, 17:40
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 17:36
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 17:35
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), george, 16:08
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), galathaea, 15:33
Re: Question concerning forms for defining sets, Bill Hale, 15:33
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 15:11
Re: Question concerning forms for defining sets, MoeBlee, 14:26
Re: Request for link to proof for set theory proposition, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:13
Request for link to proof for set theory proposition, Scott, 14:08
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Aatu Koskensilta, 13:47
Question concerning forms for defining sets, Scott, 13:30
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), george, 13:24
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), george, 13:23
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Aatu Koskensilta, 11:03
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 10:47
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 10:47
Re: Proof theoretical consistency proofs (Was: Re: Existential, Universal Quantifiers, Generalize Booleans), David C . Ullrich, 10:00
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 08:18
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Daryl McCullough, 07:06
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 06:45
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 06:31
Re: Romance and the mathematician, mikegordge, 05:10
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 04:12
Re: NW vs. infinity, abo, 03:41
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 03:23
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 03:07
Re: Romance and the mathematician, Brian Fletcher, 02:46
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 02:01
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 01:56
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 01:09
Re: Romance and the mathematician, ibshambat2004, 00:38

July 10, 2006

Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 23:36
Re: Romance and the mathematician, facilitator, 23:32
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:59
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 21:38
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 21:33
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Daryl McCullough, 20:57
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:50
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:37
Re: Romance and the mathematician, Brian Fletcher, 20:16
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 20:14
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 20:08
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:44
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:13
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:06
Re: NW vs. infinity, george, 18:40
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, herbzet, 18:27
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 18:25
Re: Romance and the mathematician, Stephen Harris, 17:29
Re: NW vs. infinity, Stephen Harris, 17:08
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 17:08
Re: Romance and the mathematician, Jan Burse, 17:06
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Stephen Harris, 16:28
Romance and the mathematician, John Jones, 15:52
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Alan Smaill, 11:55
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 11:13
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 10:08
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 07:20
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 06:24
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, David C . Ullrich, 06:06
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 04:55
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 03:04
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Rupert, 03:01

July 09, 2006

Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 23:42
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 23:07
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 22:02
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 21:36
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Stephen Harris, 21:32
Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:15
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 20:11
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 18:16
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Rupert, 18:12
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 18:02
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Stephen Harris, 17:13
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Stephen Harris, 16:23
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 14:50
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., george, 14:38
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 14:21
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, wit, 13:24
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jan Burse, 12:57
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:55
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 12:50
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, wit, 12:37
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:33
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 12:28
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, wit, 12:23
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 12:12
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 11:54
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, wit, 11:49
Re: Fnords (was: Torkel Franzén is), Charlie-Boo, 10:44
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Aatu Koskensilta, 10:26
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 10:24
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 10:11
Re: Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., Newberry, 09:55
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 03:38
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 03:38
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, herbzet, 03:38
Re: Fnords (was: Torkel Franzén is), mensanator@xxxxxxxxxxx, 01:50
Re: Fnords (was: Torkel Franzén is), Proginoskes, 00:55

July 08, 2006

Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 22:15
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 22:02
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 22:02
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 21:52
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:46
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:44
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jan Burse, 20:58
Re: Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Jan Burse, 20:35
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 20:13
Set theory ZFC is inconsistent., jaykov, 19:07
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 18:41
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 18:28
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 18:25
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 18:24
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 18:17
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Charlie-Boo, 17:46
Defining Consistency - Preliminary Results, Charlie-Boo, 17:32
Fnords (was: Torkel Franzén is), George Dance, 16:50
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 16:26
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 16:20
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 16:12
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 15:16
NW vs. infinity, george, 14:38
Re: Defining Consistency, wit, 14:20
Re: Defining Consistency, wit, 14:14
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), extropy1, 13:15
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), extropy1, 13:12
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 12:03
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 11:40
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Nam Nguyen, 11:21
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Nam Nguyen, 11:13
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Frederick Williams, 10:31
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Kevin Karn, 09:07
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, David C . Ullrich, 06:43
Re: Boolean vs. Deductive Logic, Tom, 06:37
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), chazwyman, 04:12
Re: The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe), Nam Nguyen, 04:10
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), chazwyman, 04:07
Re: The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe), Nam Nguyen, 01:08
The Many and the None Quantifiers. (Prev: Set Theory: Should You Believe), Nam Nguyen, 01:07

July 07, 2006

Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, R. Srinivasan, 23:44
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 22:44
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 22:43
Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C, Dan Hitt, 22:31
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 22:16
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Henrik, 20:49
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), Brian Fletcher, 20:18
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), Brian Fletcher, 20:16
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), Brian Fletcher, 20:12
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, george, 20:05
Re: S/W Eng Asks For Intuitive Explanation Of Logic Diagrams Using C Code (And, Or, Min/Max Limiter, One Frame Delay, etc.), Scott Seidman, 19:01
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Karl Malbrain, 18:51
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Karl Malbrain, 18:39
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Peter Niessen, 17:58
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Peter Niessen, 17:53
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, david petry, 17:19
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, herbzet, 16:58
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 16:56
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 16:55
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), leo, 16:38
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 15:43
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 15:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 15:20
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), Conspiracy of Doves, 15:19
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 14:56
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:27
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), John Jones, 14:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 14:15
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Karl Malbrain, 13:43
Re: This sentence is false? (instincts), Conspiracy of Doves, 13:18
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 13:18
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 13:06
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 13:04
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 12:59
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:52
Re: S/W Eng Asks For Intuitive Explanation Of Logic Diagrams Using C Code (And, Or, Min/Max Limiter, One Frame Delay, etc.), Jerry Avins, 12:39
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 12:20
This sentence is false? (instincts), Immortalist, 12:15
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 12:10
Re: Defining Consistency, wit, 11:54
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 11:53
Re: S/W Eng Asks For Intuitive Explanation Of Logic Diagrams Using C Code (And, Or, Min/Max Limiter, One Frame Delay, etc.), Chris L, 11:36
Re: Defining Consistency, wit, 11:21
Re: S/W Eng Asks For Intuitive Explanation Of Logic Diagrams Using C Code (And, Or, Min/Max Limiter, One Frame Delay, etc.), Jerry Avins, 10:51
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Alan Smaill, 10:33
Re: S/W Eng Asks For Intuitive Explanation Of Logic Diagrams Using C Code (And, Or, Min/Max Limiter, One Frame Delay, etc.), Chris L, 10:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:58
Re: Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:34
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 09:32
Re: S/W Eng Asks For Intuitive Explanation Of Logic Diagrams Using C Code (And, Or, Min/Max Limiter, One Frame Delay, etc.), Patricia Shanahan, 09:29
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jack Campin - bogus address, 09:22
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jack Campin - bogus address, 09:18
S/W Eng Asks For Intuitive Explanation Of Logic Diagrams Using C Code (And, Or, Min/Max Limiter, One Frame Delay, etc.), Chris L, 08:23
Re: Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?, v4venkatesh, 08:09
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jack Campin - bogus address, 07:51
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:22
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, abo, 07:17
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 06:52
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, David C . Ullrich, 06:29
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 05:56
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 05:55
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 05:55
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 05:55
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Kevin Karn, 05:21
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 04:15
Anyone knows how a Quantum Computer Works?, Sanny, 03:32
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 03:03
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 02:48
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Nam Nguyen, 02:05
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Nam Nguyen, 01:42

July 06, 2006

Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 23:49
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 23:20
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 23:11
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 23:02
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 22:54
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 22:42
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 22:20
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 22:04
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:48
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:42
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:30
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:29
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 21:28
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 20:39
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Russell Easterly, 19:52
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 19:41
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 19:38
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Russell Easterly, 19:30
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 19:15
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 19:12
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Russell Easterly, 18:48
Re: Defining Consistency, wit, 18:38
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Barb Knox, 17:45
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Russell Easterly, 15:13
Re: Torkel Franzén is, george, 14:14
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 14:04
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 13:50
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 12:54
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:42
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:32
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 12:03
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:16
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, R. Srinivasan, 10:38
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 09:39
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 09:33
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, George Dance, 09:20
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Alan Smaill, 08:56
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 08:51
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 08:07
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, goanna, 07:35
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Kevin Karn, 07:03
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 06:17
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, David C . Ullrich, 05:41
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, David C . Ullrich, 05:37
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, David C . Ullrich, 05:34
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, albstorz, 03:59
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 02:21
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 02:14

July 05, 2006

Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 23:13
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 23:12
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 22:41
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 22:36
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Ross A. Finlayson, 22:28
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 22:10
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 22:09
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 22:07
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 22:03
Re: Boolean vs. Deductive Logic, Tom, 21:38
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 20:34
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 20:21
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 20:11
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, george, 19:56
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 19:33
Re: Defining Consistency, george, 19:29
Re: Defining Consistency, wit, 19:13
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, david petry, 18:06
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 16:15
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 15:50
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 15:40
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, herbzet, 15:17
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 14:16
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 13:50
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 13:46
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 13:38
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 13:38
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 12:45
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 12:34
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 12:18
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, R. Srinivasan, 12:14
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 11:57
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Jack Campin - bogus address, 11:37
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, albstorz, 11:18
Re: Defining Consistency, Frederick Williams, 11:09
Re: Boolean vs. Deductive Logic, Frederick Williams, 10:56
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Patricia Shanahan, 10:49
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 10:39
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 10:36
Re: Defining Consistency, Frederick Williams, 10:34
Re: Defining Consistency, Frederick Williams, 10:33
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 10:29
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, george, 10:22
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 10:21
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 10:13
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 10:04
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 09:59
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 09:57
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, albstorz, 09:38
Re: Defining Consistency, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, 09:33
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 08:46
Boolean vs. Deductive Logic, Tom, 08:07
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 07:36
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 07:17
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 07:12
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 06:13
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, Keith Ramsay, 05:35
Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, David C . Ullrich, 05:18
Re: Defining Consistency, David C . Ullrich, 05:04
Re: Defining Consistency, Herman Jurjus, 04:56
Re: Defining Consistency, Herman Jurjus, 04:51
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 04:35
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 04:34
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 04:34
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 04:34
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 04:34
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 00:32

July 04, 2006

Re: PC(1): An introductory formal logic, Frederick Williams, 22:22
Re: Defining Consistency, Proginoskes, 19:12
Re: Defining Consistency, Peter Webb, 19:02
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 18:36
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 18:16
Re: Defining Consistency, Virgil, 18:04
PC(1): An introductory formal logic, George Dance, 17:31
Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C, skokodyn, 16:26
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 16:15
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, John Jones, 16:06
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Ralf Bader, 15:47
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 15:33
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 15:25
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 15:25
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 15:12
Re: Defining Consistency, David C . Ullrich, 14:59
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Henrik, 14:53
Re: Defining Consistency, george, 14:39
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 14:37
Re: Defining Consistency, george, 14:35
Re: Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 13:40
Re: Defining Consistency, Herman Jurjus, 13:29
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 13:13
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 13:11
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 13:06
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 13:00
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 11:43
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, albstorz, 11:21
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 10:49
Re: Defining Consistency, David C . Ullrich, 10:48
Re: Defining Consistency, David C . Ullrich, 10:45
Re: Defining Consistency, David C . Ullrich, 10:42
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 10:09
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 08:59
Re: Defining Consistency, Helmut Richter, 06:54
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:43
Re: Defining Consistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:00
Re: Defining Consistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:58
Re: Defining Consistency, Herman Jurjus, 05:56
Re: Defining Consistency, Herman Jurjus, 05:53
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 05:48
Re: Defining Consistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:35
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 05:22
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 05:13
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 05:03
Re: Defining Consistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 04:50
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 04:49
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 04:17
Re: Defining Consistency, Rupert, 04:13
Re: Defining Consistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:50
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 03:38
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 03:23
Re: Defining Consistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:20
Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C, Dan Hitt, 03:10
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 03:04
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 02:58
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 02:57
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 02:27
Re: Defining Consistency, Peter Webb, 02:11
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 02:10
Re: Defining Consistency, Proginoskes, 01:59
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 01:58
Re: Defining Consistency, Pietro, 01:54
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 01:42
Re: Defining Consistency, Virgil, 01:38
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 01:24
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 01:23
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 01:16
Re: Defining Consistency, Jan Burse, 01:05
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 00:59
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 00:55
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 00:52
Re: Defining Consistency, Proginoskes, 00:19
Re: Defining Consistency, Gene Ward Smith, 00:16

July 03, 2006

Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 22:43
Re: Defining Consistency, Nam Nguyen, 22:38
Re: Defining Consistency, herbzet, 22:23
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 21:31
Re: No Mid Term Reasoning, Jan Burse, 21:22
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, george, 21:21
Defining Consistency, Charlie-Boo, 21:02
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, george, 20:54
Re: Tree Algorithm, Charlie-Boo, 20:52
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 19:05
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Rupert, 19:00
Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C, skokodyn, 18:31
Re: No Mid Term Reasoning, Immortalist, 18:27
Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C, Jan Burse, 16:51
Re: Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C, galathaea, 14:37
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 14:20
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, george, 14:13
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Patricia Shanahan, 13:32
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, albstorz, 11:20
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Frederick Williams, 10:55
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Patricia Shanahan, 09:08
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:20
Re: Why why why, Ali, 04:43
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Kevin Karn, 04:30
Books On Religion & Philosophy (New Releases), naresh gupta, 02:22
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Nam Nguyen, 01:22
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Nam Nguyen, 00:51
Re: Torkel Franzén is, herbzet, 00:44
Re: Torkel Franzén is, herbzet, 00:37
Re: Torkel Franzén is, herbzet, 00:30

July 02, 2006

Sequin-Covered Paper Airplanes instead of Rocket-Fuel for Real Men., Prosecute Koch Brothers for Global Warming FLOOD Damages, 23:44
Re: Tree Algorithm, The Ghost In The Machine, 23:00
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Barb Knox, 22:58
Re: Global Warming is easily solved by commercial airplanes releasing Paper Sequin Re:, CoreyWhite, 22:52
Re: No Mid Term Reasoning, William Elliot, 22:43
Re: No Mid Term Reasoning, Jan Burse, 22:40
Re: No Mid Term Reasoning, Jan Burse, 22:26
Re: No Mid Term Reasoning, Jan Burse, 22:10
Looking for a proof checker in library form, callable from C, Dan Hitt, 21:57
Re: No Mid Term Reasoning, shahrukh, 20:46
No Mid Term Reasoning, Conbra, 20:20
the test-pilot-case Re: Global Warming is easily solved by commercial airplanes releasing Paper Sequin Re:, a_plutonium, 17:45
Re: Torkel Franzén is dead, galathaea, 16:01
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Tony Olrlow, 15:29
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Tony Olrlow, 15:28
Re: Torkel Franzén is, george, 14:46
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:44
Re: Torkel Franzén is, george, 14:28
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Virgil, 14:13
Re: Torkel Franzén is, george, 14:08
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Virgil, 14:07
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, george, 14:02
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Virgil, 13:49
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, Virgil, 13:46
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, george, 13:32
Re: Tree Algorithm, Denis Feldmann, 13:17
Tree Algorithm, Charlie-Boo, 13:06
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, albstorz, 08:47
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, albstorz, 08:42
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, albstorz, 08:31
Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist, albstorz, 08:28
Re: can someone help me, David C . Ullrich, 08:04
can someone help me, pchowin, 04:42
I made a model of Pinatuba out of Cottonwood seeds, but it's still HOT! The idea sucks., Prosecute Koch Brother for Global Warming FLOOD Damages, 04:11
Global Warming is easily solved by commercial airplanes releasing Paper Sequin Re:, a_plutonium, 03:25
Re: Connectivity of a graph in FO, William Elliot, 00:55

July 01, 2006

Re: WARNING! CRACKPOT ALERT!, The Ghost In The Machine, 21:00
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [19], Conbra, 20:34
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 20:33
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 20:26
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 16:43
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Ralf Bader, 16:08
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, david petry, 15:33
Re: False theories (Was: Re: Torkel Franzén is), herbzet, 14:02
Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [18], Jan Burse, 13:46
Re: False theories (Was: Re: Torkel Franzén is), Aatu Koskensilta, 13:34
Re: False theories (Was: Re: Torkel Franzén is), herbzet, 13:27
Re: False theories (Was: Re: Torkel Franzén is), Aatu Koskensilta, 13:17
Re: False theories (Was: Re: Torkel Franzén is), herbzet, 13:05
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 12:49
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Peter Webb, 12:49
False theories (Was: Re: Torkel Franzén is), Aatu Koskensilta, 12:38
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 12:36
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 12:26
Re: proof of undecidability of halting problem, Charlie-Boo, 12:18
Re: Torkel Franzén is, herbzet, 11:53
False theories, George Dance, 11:34
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Patricia Shanahan, 11:10
Re: Set Theory: Should You Believe, Kevin Karn, 10:19
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:12
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Frederick Williams, 10:08
Re: Torkel Franzén is, herbzet, 09:57
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:28
Re: Torkel Franzén is, herbzet, 09:20
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:31
Re: Potential Things, George Dance, 07:52
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 07:27
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 07:22
Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 05:59
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:37
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:20
Why why why, Mr_Wizzird, 05:08
Why why why, Mr_Wizzird, 05:05
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Aatu Koskensilta, 04:28

June 30, 2006

Re: Torkel Franzén is, George Dance, 23:23
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, Frederick Williams, 22:38
Re: Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [18], Jan Burse, 21:03
Re: Scott on CH in 2nd order set theory, george, 20:42
Back Reasoning from partial Syllogism [18], Conbra, 20:28
[FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web, Boris 'pi' Piwinger, 20:03
Re: Torkel Franzén is, Henrik, 16:40