sci.logic (date)
October 31, 2006
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Jesse F. Hughes, 21:10
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 20:59
- Gödel's modal proof that there is something, Dunk, 20:16
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, MoeBlee, 18:43
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 18:26
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 18:24
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 16:45
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Jesse F. Hughes, 16:23
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 15:53
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 15:41
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Nam Nguyen, 15:30
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 15:21
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 15:14
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 15:11
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Owen, 15:02
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 14:59
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Owen, 14:57
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 14:42
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Roberto Vescarelli, 14:33
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Owen, 14:16
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Owen, 14:01
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 13:44
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Owen, 13:24
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 12:57
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, Rupert, 08:19
- Re: The L3 Revolution, galathaea, 07:40
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, galathaea, 06:45
- The L3 Revolution, William Elliot, 05:44
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 02:48
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Peter_Smith, 01:36
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Peter_Smith, 01:04
- Re: Cantor's diagonalization argument, george, 00:30
- Re: Need help constructing ADD function from PA, george, 00:19
October 30, 2006
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, Rupert, 23:33
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, Dave L. Renfro, 22:11
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, george, 22:11
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 21:59
- Re: Need help constructing an add function from PA, george, 21:52
- Re: The L3 Revolution, galathaea, 21:44
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Roberto Vescarelli, 21:26
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 20:22
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, MoeBlee, 20:03
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, MoeBlee, 19:51
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 19:04
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 16:16
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, Eckard Blumschein, 14:07
- Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Owen, 13:22
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 10:44
- Re: Petersen's magical argument, R. Srinivasan, 10:43
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, R. Srinivasan, 09:08
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 08:46
- Longest Day of the Year, William Elliot, 08:29
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, Rupert, 06:23
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:24
October 29, 2006
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Jan Burse, 23:27
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 21:28
- Re: Cantor's diagonalization argument, george, 16:12
- Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>, Art Deco, 16:00
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Daryl McCullough, 14:08
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Daryl McCullough, 13:59
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Daryl McCullough, 13:50
- Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, lugita15, 12:07
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Peter_Smith, 11:31
- Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 09:51
- Re: SCIENCE IS DYING ONLY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM?, Brad Guth, 06:02
- Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>, Brad Guth, 05:53
- Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>, Brad Guth, 05:39
- Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Charlie-Boo, 05:16
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, galathaea, 03:04
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Mitch, 02:57
- Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 02:02
October 28, 2006
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 21:14
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 20:42
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 20:29
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 20:24
- Re: Petersen's magical argument, LauLuna, 20:21
- Re: Cantor's diagonalization argument, george, 20:18
- Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Charlie-Boo, 19:55
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 19:39
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Jan Burse, 18:56
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 18:38
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Jan Burse, 18:05
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Jan Burse, 11:40
- Re: The L3 Revolution, William Elliot, 04:45
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 03:25
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 02:09
October 27, 2006
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Mitch, 23:54
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 23:42
- Re: History of the deduction theorem, Frederick Williams, 23:23
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Jan Burse, 23:16
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 22:52
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Jan Burse, 22:46
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Mitch, 22:33
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 22:11
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 21:36
- Re: On Ultrafinitism, MoeBlee, 21:28
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 21:24
- History of the deduction theorem, andreas . stokke, 20:50
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 20:16
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 20:04
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 19:49
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 18:51
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 17:31
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 16:12
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 16:10
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Aatu Koskensilta, 16:01
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 15:38
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 15:32
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:33
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Aatu Koskensilta, 14:30
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 13:50
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 12:31
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 12:29
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 12:12
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 09:54
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 09:15
- Re: Equivalence, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:42
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 08:31
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 08:28
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 08:13
- On Ultrafinitism, Bill Taylor, 06:37
- Re: Proof of finite axiomatizability, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:20
- Re: Proof of finite axiomatizability, William Elliot, 04:59
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:58
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 03:43
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Aatu Koskensilta, 02:33
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 02:18
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, george, 02:06
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Aatu Koskensilta, 01:53
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 01:13
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 00:58
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 00:49
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 00:46
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 00:45
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 00:44
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Rupert, 00:24
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Aatu Koskensilta, 00:07
October 26, 2006
- Re: Strange Borel quote, Herman Jurjus, 23:53
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 23:46
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 23:08
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 18:54
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Frederick Williams, 16:44
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Frederick Williams, 16:41
- Re: Proof of finite axiomatizability, Atreides, 16:35
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, aatu . koskensilta, 14:57
- Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Rupert, 13:41
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 13:30
- Re: Proof of finite axiomatizability, David C . Ullrich, 11:33
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 08:34
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., The Ghost In The Machine, 08:25
- Re: Proof of finite axiomatizability, William Elliot, 07:50
- Proof of finite axiomatizability, Atreides, 06:10
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 02:51
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, george, 00:19
October 25, 2006
- Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 23:03
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 21:35
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 20:58
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 18:10
- Re: The L3 Revolution, Frederick Williams, 16:40
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 12:17
- Re: Applying logic to how search engine work., David C . Ullrich, 11:27
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 10:47
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 10:00
- A Simple Example on Model Theory and Descriptive Set Theory, Payam Razavi, 07:57
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 06:25
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 05:58
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, george, 05:49
- Re: The L3 Revolution, William Elliot, 04:59
- The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 03:57
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Mitch, 03:41
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 00:36
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, george, 00:29
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 00:24
October 24, 2006
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 22:51
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 22:31
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, fully functional, Confutus, 21:25
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 19:51
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 19:03
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 18:49
- Applying logic to how search engine work., neo, 18:41
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 18:32
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., R. Srinivasan, 18:23
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Frederick Williams, 16:44
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Frederick Williams, 16:40
- Re: Silly Question, UC, 15:59
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 10:33
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, LauLuna, 10:18
- Re: The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., Stephen Harris, 09:18
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, fully functional, herbzet, 08:49
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 08:24
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, Stephen Harris, 06:54
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 05:04
- The Modified Halting Problem, Take ??? ., The Ghost In The Machine, 03:09
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 02:47
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, george, 02:39
October 23, 2006
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 21:10
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, LauLuna, 19:38
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, R. Srinivasan, 18:04
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, Peter Olcott, 17:00
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 16:55
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Peter Olcott, 16:43
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, R. Srinivasan, 16:30
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 16:30
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 15:44
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 15:36
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, Peter Olcott, 15:03
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 15:01
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Herman Jurjus, 14:59
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, R. Srinivasan, 14:43
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, R. Srinivasan, 14:31
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., aatu . koskensilta, 12:50
- Re: Need help constructing an add function from PA, aatu . koskensilta, 12:46
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 12:16
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 11:51
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., Tron, 11:27
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, R. Srinivasan, 10:48
- Re: Wittgenstein's Fuzzy Family, Wanker, 10:04
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, R. Srinivasan, 09:02
- :: cyclic negations ::, galathaea, 07:51
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, Nam Nguyen, 06:39
- Re: Equivalence, herbzet, 01:31
October 22, 2006
- Re: Petersen's magical argument, R. Srinivasan, 22:51
- Re: Petersen's magical argument, R. Srinivasan, 20:45
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Peter Olcott, 20:34
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 20:07
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 20:04
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, george, 20:02
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, Peter Olcott, 19:46
- Re: Where's the logic in Earth having that moon ???, Brad Guth, 19:33
- Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, george, 19:30
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 19:27
- Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Jack Campin - bogus address, 19:27
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Peter Olcott, 19:18
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, LauLuna, 18:45
- Re: A implies I, Owen, 18:41
- Petersen's magical argument, LauLuna, 18:12
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., Dave Seaman, 15:27
- Re: Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 15:24
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, R. Srinivasan, 11:48
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., Nam Nguyen, 09:42
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., Wolfgang Rave, 09:39
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., Proginoskes, 08:52
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., Proginoskes, 08:48
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 08:03
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., Keith Ramsay, 07:35
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, fully functional, William Elliot, 05:15
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., William Elliot, 05:05
- Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, lugita15, 02:27
- Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, lugita15, 02:24
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., Randy Poe, 00:07
October 21, 2006
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 23:55
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 22:59
- Logic of uncertainty, fully functional, Confutus, 22:50
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 22:30
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., drmwecker, 21:45
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 20:24
- Halting Problem for Humans, Daryl McCullough, 20:22
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 19:21
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., William Hughes, 18:50
- Re: Need help constructing an add function from PA, george, 18:29
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., schoenfeld . one, 18:21
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), George Dance, 18:19
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., george, 17:50
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., schoenfeld . one, 16:10
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., David C . Ullrich, 16:00
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, Peter Olcott, 15:46
- Re: Posts that should never be responded to ..., William Hughes, 15:32
- Posts that should never be responded to ..., Peter Webb, 15:26
- Re: Is Einstein's E=mc2, CONCEPTUALLY applicable for energy emitted Chemical Reactions., Peter Webb, 15:24
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., William Elliot, 10:29
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, R. Srinivasan, 09:31
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 08:23
- A kind of fun question., Nam Nguyen, 08:01
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, modal logic, Confutus, 07:53
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Aatu Koskensilta, 07:36
- Re: Need help constructing an add function from PA, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:25
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, george, 07:21
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 05:53
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 05:15
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 04:50
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 04:49
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 04:49
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 04:48
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 04:48
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., William Elliot, 04:15
- Re: Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Frederick Williams, 04:00
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 04:00
- Re: Need help constructing an add function from PA, george, 01:25
- Re: A implies I, Owen, 00:55
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, Jan Burse, 00:45
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 00:09
October 20, 2006
- Re: A implies I, Owen, 23:59
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), George Dance, 23:52
- Re: A implies I, Owen, 23:47
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 23:47
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), George Dance, 23:39
- Re: Proofs to programs, Alan Smaill, 23:36
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, Alan Smaill, 23:20
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, george, 22:04
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 21:57
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 21:42
- Re: Wittgenstein's Fuzzy Family, Immortalist, 18:27
- Logic of uncertainty, early explorations., Confutus, 18:20
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, LauLuna, 17:35
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, Jack Campin - bogus address, 15:59
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, Alan Smaill, 15:35
- Where's the logic in Earth having that moon ???, Brad Guth, 15:22
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 15:13
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 15:04
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 15:00
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 14:29
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, Alan Smaill, 13:50
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Herman Jurjus, 11:43
- Re: What is the difference?, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:41
- Re: What is the difference?, Peter_Smith, 09:11
- What is the difference?, bluelabel, 04:40
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Daryl McCullough, 04:14
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 02:41
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 01:50
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 01:40
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 00:50
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Peter Niessen, 00:42
October 19, 2006
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 23:57
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 21:19
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Charlie-Boo, 21:13
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 16:55
- Re: Silly Question, Frederick Williams, 16:46
- Re: Strange Borel quote, Herman Jurjus, 16:44
- Re: Non-arbitrary mathematics, Frederick Williams, 16:30
- Non-arbitrary mathematics, Eckard Blumschein, 15:32
- Re: New sub intuitionistic logic ? not sub minimal, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 14:11
- Re: Strange Borel quote, Proginoskes, 07:07
October 18, 2006
- Re: Strange Borel quote, galathaea, 23:55
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Daryl McCullough, 23:26
- Re: Silly Question, Mark Wallace, 22:59
- Re: A implies I, Chris Menzel, 21:20
- Re: Need help constructing an add function from PA, george, 20:51
- Re: A implies I, William of Ockham, 20:23
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 20:21
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, MoeBlee, 19:04
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, george, 18:41
- Re: A implies I, Yuri, 17:19
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, Frederick Williams, 16:47
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 15:59
- Re: New sub minimal or sub intuitionistic logic ? intference rules, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 15:21
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Daryl McCullough, 14:52
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, Peter Olcott, 13:59
- Re: A implies I, Chris Menzel, 13:53
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 12:52
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Peter_Smith, 10:33
- hi, mysun_1, 07:13
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Nam Nguyen, 07:00
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 06:00
- Re: how to define Thm in PRA, george, 05:57
- Re: A Possible "solution" to the Halting Problem, george, 05:51
- Re: Are Heytings axioms for intuitionistic logic sufficient?, Keith Ramsay, 05:30
- Re: Silly Question, Odysseus, 03:29
- Re: A implies I, Chris Menzel, 03:22
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 02:03
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 01:45
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 01:40
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 01:33
- Re: A implies I, George Dance, 01:26
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Daniel T., 01:24
- Re: A implies I, Chris Menzel, 01:12
October 17, 2006
- Re: Strange Borel quote, galathaea, 23:07
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Paul Holbach, 22:52
- Re: A implies I, William of Ockham, 22:42
- Re: A implies I, William of Ockham, 22:37
- Re: Strange Borel quote, Dave L. Renfro, 21:47
- Strange Borel quote, Herman Jurjus, 21:14
- Re: A implies I, Chris Menzel, 19:45
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Daniel T., 19:34
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Paul Holbach, 19:20
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Paul Holbach, 19:17
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 18:47
- Re: A implies I, Arturo Magidin, 18:46
- Re: A implies I, William of Ockham, 18:31
- Re: Silly Question, Prisoner at War, 18:08
- Re: Silly Question, Prisoner at War, 18:06
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 18:01
- Re: Silly Question, Spehro Pefhany, 17:58
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 17:58
- Re: Silly Question, Arturo Magidin, 17:07
- Silly Question, Prisoner at War, 16:54
October 15, 2006
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Daniel T., 16:45
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, gibbs, 05:31
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Paul Holbach, 01:34
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Paul Holbach, 01:26
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Daniel T., 00:14
October 14, 2006
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, gibbs, 22:00
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Daniel T., 21:48
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Russ Rose, 17:45
- Re: Beliefs; Necessary But Not Sufficient For Truth?, Paul Holbach, 16:06
- Re: Rules of divisibility for a counting number N, me13013, 15:36
October 08, 2006
- Re: Modal Logic, Owen, 15:06
- Re: Modal Logic, Owen, 14:47
- Re: Modal Logic, Owen, 14:38
- Re: Modal Logic, Frederick Williams, 14:23
- Re: Is Einsteinâs E=mc2, CONCEPTUALLY applicable for energy emitted Chemical Reactions., physicsajay, 14:07
- Re: Question about second-order logic, LauLuna, 13:59
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, Stephen Harris, 12:12
- Re: Trademark expressions in symbolic logic, William Elliot, 09:23
- Re: Trademark expressions in symbolic logic, William Elliot, 09:22
- Re: 2nd-Order Predicate: mammal ?, Karmata, 08:45
- Re: Help with models, Nam Nguyen, 08:11
- Re: Question about second-order logic, Chris Menzel, 07:33
- Re: Question about second-order logic, Rupert, 05:18
- Re: "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, galathaea, 04:57
- Re: Question about second-order logic, lugita15, 04:04
- 2nd-Order Predicate: mammal ?, Karmata, 03:58
- Re: "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, Karmata, 03:08
- Re: Trademark expressions in symbolic logic, Chris Menzel, 03:07
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, mikegordge, 02:54
- Re: "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, Karmata, 02:41
- Trademark expressions in symbolic logic, michel . cotourier, 02:34
- Re: "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, george, 02:12
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, Stephen Harris, 01:10
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, Stephen Harris, 00:58
October 07, 2006
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, mikegordge, 23:50
- Re: Craig's theorem, Glaukon, 23:29
- Re: Question about second-order logic, Chris Menzel, 23:23
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, Stephen Harris, 23:23
- Re: Modal Logic, Chris Menzel, 23:09
- Re: Modus Ponens and Trivial Truth, Confutus, 22:41
- Re: Modus Ponens and Trivial Truth, Charlie-Boo, 22:25
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, Stephen Harris, 20:29
- Re: Question about second-order logic, lugita15, 17:18
- Re: Question about second-order logic, Paul Holbach, 17:00
- Re: "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, Paul Holbach, 16:34
- Re: "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, Paul Holbach, 16:30
- Re: "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, Paul Holbach, 16:11
- Re: Modal Logic, Frederick Williams, 14:21
- Re: Modal Logic, Owen, 13:15
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, mikegordge, 09:05
- Re: "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, galathaea, 08:30
- Re: :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, mikegordge, 08:10
- :: quantum incoherence and the logical structure of science (re: mike gordge and obscene videos) ::, galathaea, 07:58
- Re: Modus Ponens and Trivial Truth, herbzet, 03:53
- Re: Question about second-order logic, Rupert, 02:11
- "is a" & "has a" relations re: 2nd-Order Logic, Karmata, 01:12
- Re: Craig's theorem, Peter_Smith, 01:08
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 00:22
October 06, 2006
- Re: Craig's theorem, Glaukon, 23:55
- Re: Modal Logic, Owen, 22:29
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 22:15
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 22:00
- Re: Modal Logic, Owen, 21:42
- Re: Computability and logic, Tom, 20:45
- Re: Craig's theorem, T.B., 20:25
- Craig's theorem, Glaukon, 19:57
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 18:45
- Re: Help with models, MoeBlee, 18:35
- Re: Modus Ponens and Trivial Truth, Confutus, 18:34
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 17:49
- Re: Modal Logic, Frederick Williams, 17:43
- Re: Modal Logic, Owen, 13:24
- Re: Help with models, bluelabel, 12:33
- Re: Modus Ponens and Trivial Truth, herbzet, 05:44
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, herbzet, 05:33
- Is Einsteinâs E=mc2, CONCEPTUALLY applicable for energy emitted Chemical Reactions., physicsajay, 05:16
- Re: Thankyou and goodbye., george, 02:46
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 02:01
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 00:48
- Re: Explicit choice functions on subsets of R, Alan Smaill, 00:16
- Re: Explicit choice functions on subsets of R, Rupert, 00:02
October 05, 2006
- Re: Modal Logic, Jan Burse, 23:16
- Re: Help with models, Barb Knox, 23:03
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 22:54
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 22:42
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), George Dance, 22:03
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 22:01
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), George Dance, 21:51
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 21:06
- Re: Computability and logic, MoeBlee, 21:06
- Help with models, bluelabel, 20:57
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 20:45
- Re: Modal Logic, Dmitry Sustretov <dmitry.sustretov@xxxxxxxxx>, 20:41
- Re: Computability and logic, Tom, 20:40
- Re: Modal Logic, Jan Burse, 19:02
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Morgan, 18:56
- Re: A Questionable Foundation, MoeBlee, 18:36
- Re: Computability and logic, MoeBlee, 18:31
- Re: Explicit choice functions on subsets of R, aatu . koskensilta, 17:57
- Re: Explicit choice functions on subsets of R, Ross A. Finlayson, 17:31
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, aatu . koskensilta, 17:29
- Re: Explicit choice functions on subsets of R, aatu . koskensilta, 17:15
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, aatu . koskensilta, 17:08
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, aatu . koskensilta, 16:59
- Re: Modal Logic, Frederick Williams, 16:50
- Re: Modal Logic, Frederick Williams, 16:43
- Re: A Questionable Foundation, Han de Bruijn, 15:37
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 14:07
- Re: Computability and logic, Tom, 13:42
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 13:08
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 12:47
- Re: Question about second-order logic, lugita15, 12:28
- Re: Question about second-order logic, Rupert, 10:50
- Re: Explicit choice functions on subsets of R, Rupert, 09:21
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 05:35
- Re: how to prove ~ ( P & Q) => ~P v ~Q, Frederick Williams, 03:59
- Re: Modal Logic, Frederick Williams, 03:56
- Re: Modal Logic, Frederick Williams, 03:55
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 03:53
- Re: Modal Logic, Frederick Williams, 03:48
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 03:14
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 02:56
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 02:46
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 02:41
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Jack Campin - bogus address, 02:19
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 01:55
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, Confutus, 01:33
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Stephen Harris, 01:24
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, mordov, 00:37
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 00:26
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, Confutus, 00:08
October 04, 2006
- Re: Computability and logic, MoeBlee, 23:09
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, Confutus, 22:51
- Re: Computability and logic, MoeBlee, 22:30
- Re: Computability and logic, george, 22:25
- Re: Computability and logic, MoeBlee, 22:08
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 22:07
- Re: Explicit choice functions on subsets of R, lugita15, 22:01
- Re: Computability and logic, george, 20:55
- Re: Computability and logic, Tom, 20:23
- Re: Question about second-order logic, yumingfeng25928@xxxxxxxxx, 20:07
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, mordov, 19:46
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 18:49
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, Jan Burse, 18:08
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 18:05
- Re: Modal Logic, Jan Burse, 18:04
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 17:47
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 16:19
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 15:07
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 14:29
- Re: Thankyou and goodbye., David C . Ullrich, 13:58
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, David C . Ullrich, 13:50
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 13:28
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 13:09
- Explicit choice functions on subsets of R, Peter Webb, 07:12
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Steven Zenith, 07:05
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 07:00
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 06:53
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 06:25
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, Confutus, 05:58
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Nam Nguyen, 05:56
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, JEFFREY KETLAND, 05:45
- Re: Modus Ponens and Trivial Truth, MoeBlee, 05:42
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Nam Nguyen, 05:37
- Re: Modus Ponens and Trivial Truth, Confutus, 05:33
- Re: Modal Logic, Confutus, 04:12
- Re: Sheer lies, cheating by Dr Alexander Inpain , who introduced as Scientist and Administrator at CERN ( European Organization for Nuclear Research ) in various post . But it proved all fraud. He was disusing about my work Einstein Sep 1905 paper and my book, physicsajay, 03:48
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 03:45
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Bill Hale, 02:48
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 02:43
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 00:48
- Thankyou and goodbye., John Jones, 00:09
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 00:00
October 03, 2006
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 23:42
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 23:36
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, MoeBlee, 23:07
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, MoeBlee, 23:02
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 22:54
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, MoeBlee, 22:48
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 22:43
- Re: Computability and logic, MoeBlee, 22:09
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, MoeBlee, 22:06
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 21:47
- Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 21:36
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 21:31
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Mitch, 21:11
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 20:59
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 20:47
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Bill Hale, 20:47
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 20:19
- Re: Computability and logic, Tom, 20:14
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 19:57
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 19:25
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 19:01
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Dirk Van de moortel, 18:42
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, hale, 18:28
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Mitch, 18:03
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 17:36
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 16:39
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Philo D, 16:32
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), LauLuna, 16:30
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 16:08
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 16:04
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Nam Nguyen, 16:02
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Peter_Smith, 15:51
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Patricia Shanahan, 15:46
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Nam Nguyen, 15:23
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 15:20
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 14:21
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, David C . Ullrich, 14:01
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, David C . Ullrich, 14:01
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, David C . Ullrich, 13:57
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 13:18
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Alan Smaill, 12:59
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 11:31
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 11:11
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 10:28
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 10:19
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Peter_Smith, 09:42
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Nam Nguyen, 09:23
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Nam Nguyen, 08:12
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Nam Nguyen, 08:01
- Re: Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Peter Webb, 06:02
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 04:04
- Re: Introduction to Tarski's works, Stephen Harris, 03:42
- Question about second-order logic, lugita15, 03:38
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Aatu Koskensilta, 03:00
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 02:42
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, lugita15, 02:39
- Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 02:14
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), khodaeifar@xxxxxxxxx, 00:59
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Peter_Smith, 00:56
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Peter_Smith, 00:50
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Aatu Koskensilta, 00:44
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), khodaeifar@xxxxxxxxx, 00:41
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), khodaeifar@xxxxxxxxx, 00:39
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), khodaeifar@xxxxxxxxx, 00:37
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Peter_Smith, 00:32
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Stephen Harris, 00:09
- Re: Computability and logic, MoeBlee, 00:02
October 02, 2006
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Dirk Van de moortel, 23:49
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Aatu Koskensilta, 23:47
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, lugita15, 23:36
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Aatu Koskensilta, 23:34
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Peter_Smith, 23:34
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 23:29
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Khodaeifar, 23:20
- Re: recursively axiomatizable, Peter_Smith, 23:18
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Khodaeifar, 23:08
- Re: Zen and...Math??, NYC XYZ, 22:17
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), joes, 22:17
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Dirk Van de moortel, 22:06
- Re: Self-Refrential, Dirk Van de moortel, 22:05
- Re: Self-Refrential (2), Dirk Van de moortel, 22:05
- Re: Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Tim Peters, 22:02
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Aatu Koskensilta, 21:38
- Self-Refrential (2), Khodaeifar, 21:25
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 21:24
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 21:15
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 20:55
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Aatu Koskensilta, 20:54
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 20:52
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Aatu Koskensilta, 20:49
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, lugita15, 20:43
- recursively axiomatizable, bluelabel, 20:39
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, george, 20:33
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Charlie-Boo, 20:09
- Re: Zen and...Math??, wit, 19:58
- Program Synthesis and formallization?, Mitch, 19:53
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 19:49
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 19:42
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 19:00
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Alan Smaill, 18:51
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 18:42
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 18:41
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 18:39
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Alan Smaill, 18:38
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 18:34
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 18:30
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 18:20
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 18:11
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 18:07
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Chris Menzel, 17:59
- Re: Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Arturo Magidin, 17:47
- Re: Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Arturo Magidin, 17:33
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 17:23
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Bhupinder Singh Anand, 17:21
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 17:21
- Re: Self-Refrential, Lee Rudolph, 16:58
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Aatu Koskensilta, 16:08
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Aatu Koskensilta, 16:03
- Re: Self-Refrential, Peter_Smith, 16:00
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 15:56
- Re: Self-Refrential, Aatu Koskensilta, 15:55
- Self-Refrential, Khodaeifar, 15:35
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 15:07
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 14:54
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, lugita15, 14:47
- Re: Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Arturo Magidin, 14:41
- Re: how to prove ~ ( P & Q) => ~P v ~Q, Jack Campin - bogus address, 14:30
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 14:30
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 14:22
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Charlie-Boo, 14:11
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Charlie-Boo, 13:33
- Re: how to prove ~ ( P & Q) => ~P v ~Q, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 13:07
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Daryl McCullough, 13:07
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 13:03
- Re: [FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 13:00
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, David C . Ullrich, 12:33
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 11:41
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 11:28
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 11:12
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Peter_Smith, 09:47
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Bhupinder Singh Anand, 09:40
- Re: Introduction to Tarski's works, Peter_Smith, 09:39
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 09:14
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 09:09
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 08:42
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 08:24
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 08:19
- Re: Introduction to Tarski's works, wit, 08:16
- Introduction to Tarski's works, mctodd333, 07:54
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Bhupinder Singh Anand, 07:47
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Stephen Harris, 07:23
- Re: Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Peter Webb, 05:45
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Stephen Harris, 05:11
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 04:48
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 04:23
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 03:23
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 02:59
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Charlie-Boo, 02:44
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Peter_Smith, 01:28
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 01:00
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Peter_Smith, 00:24
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 00:18
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, MoeBlee, 00:16
October 01, 2006
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Chris Menzel, 23:53
- Re: Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Tim Peters, 23:31
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 23:21
- Re: Sudoku Creator and Step by Step Solver, Jan Burse, 23:10
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Stephen Harris, 22:57
- Re: Modus Ponens Is Unprovable?, George Dance, 22:30
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 22:23
- Re: Sudoku Creator and Step by Step Solver, Peter_Smith, 21:49
- Re: Sudoku Creator and Step by Step Solver, George Dance, 21:41
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Chris Menzel, 20:58
- Re: Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Arturo Magidin, 20:57
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 19:33
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 19:15
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 18:28
- Re: Computability and logic, Tom, 18:27
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, R. Srinivasan, 17:59
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, lugita15, 17:42
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 17:24
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 17:09
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 16:58
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, lugita15, 16:07
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 15:41
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Peter_Smith, 15:27
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 15:26
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 15:19
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 15:17
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 15:12
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 15:09
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 15:00
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, lugita15, 14:57
- Arturo and Tim Peters" - Zorn's Lemma, Peter Webb, 14:55
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Peter_Smith, 14:46
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Peter_Smith, 14:40
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 14:37
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 14:14
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 13:56
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Stephen Harris, 12:44
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, R. Srinivasan, 12:27
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 12:00
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, John Jones, 11:57
- ., John Jones, 11:42
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 11:07
- Re: Goldbach Conjecture & the Foundation of First Order Logic., Alexandre BELDI, 10:59
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 10:37
- Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Steven Zenith, 10:24
- Re: A New Resolution to Impredicativity, Keith Ramsay, 09:51
- Re: Question about first-order arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 09:32
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Charlie-Boo, 08:17
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Charlie-Boo, 08:09
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Bhupinder Singh Anand, 06:39
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Jack Campin - bogus address, 02:19
- Question about first-order arithmetic, lugita15, 02:16
- [FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web, Boris 'pi' Piwinger, 02:03
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Stephen Harris, 02:02
- Re: how to prove ~ ( P & Q) => ~P v ~Q, Peter_Smith, 02:00
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Daryl McCullough, 01:49
- Re: My investigations into Godels Incompleteness Theorem, Peter_Smith, 01:48
- Re: how to prove ~ ( P & Q) => ~P v ~Q, William Elliot, 01:26
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 01:14
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 01:07
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Stephen Harris, 01:02
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, Stephen Harris, 00:31
- Re: Foundations of Mathematics, John Jones, 00:01