sci.logic (date)

sci.logic (date)

[Thread Index] [Top] [All Lists]

November 30, 2006

Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, Freedom Loving Bushite Destroyer, 17:04
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, lugita15, 15:44
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, MoeBlee, 14:08
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 13:28
Re: Simple way to multiply big numbers (video), Jan Burse, 13:22
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 13:02
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, MoeBlee, 12:44
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:36
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:22
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:20
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:18
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:14
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 11:55
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 11:54
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 11:47
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 11:36
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 11:04
Simple way to multiply big numbers (video), Xadai, 08:20
Re: Deep Thoughts # 28. The Meaning of Truth (Finally!), Charlie-Boo, 04:37
Re: Deep Thoughts # 28. The Meaning of Truth (Finally!), Windows User, 02:09
Deep Thoughts # 28. The Meaning of Truth (Finally!), Charlie-Boo, 01:51
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 01:46

November 29, 2006

Re: axioms of mathematical logic, tohentoon, 18:36
Re: description logic - axiomatic set theory, Chris Menzel, 12:51
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 10:17
description logic - axiomatic set theory, S.L., 09:00
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 07:00
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, lugita15, 06:43
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 00:04

November 28, 2006

Re: Logical Implication and Equivalence, herbzet, 20:49
Logical Implication and Equivalence, Mad_man_on_a_MissIon, 20:07
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, MoeBlee, 18:19
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, itaj, 17:47
Re: texts for minimal logic, Jan Burse, 17:36
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, itaj, 17:14
Re: texts for minimal logic, Jan Burse, 17:04
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, Rupert, 16:45
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, Rupert, 16:44
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 16:24
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, tohentoon, 15:36
Re: Practical Application of the "Liar's Paradox", jerry kraus, 15:33
Re: compactness theorem confusion, tohentoon, 15:16
Re: Practical Application of the "Liar's Paradox", LauLuna, 13:29
Re: Practical Application of the "Liar's Paradox", LauLuna, 13:29
Re: texts for minimal logic, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 13:08
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, george, 09:50
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, george, 09:42
Re: fourier transformation and distributions, Frederick Williams, 09:40
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, David C . Ullrich, 08:15
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 07:33
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Daryl McCullough, 06:50
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, lugita15, 06:31
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, lugita15, 06:23
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 05:16
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 04:50
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 01:54

November 27, 2006

Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 23:01
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 22:35
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 22:28
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Jan Burse, 16:58
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, lugita15, 16:24
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, abo, 16:18
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, abo, 16:02
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, John Jones, 15:43
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 14:51
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 14:04
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 14:00
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 13:51
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 13:35
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 13:26
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 12:51
Re: texts for minimal logic, Jan Burse, 12:47
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:37
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Charlie-Boo, 12:37
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 12:16
Re: Finite/infinite models, lacrimosalundin, 12:00
Re: Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 11:43
Off topic Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 09:45
Re: fourier transformation and distributions, David C . Ullrich, 09:07
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, David C . Ullrich, 09:03
Re: texts for minimal logic, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 07:54
Re: texts for minimal logic, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 07:54
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 04:37
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 03:12
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 03:10
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 02:55
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 02:43

November 26, 2006

Re: Q: equality elemination, William Elliot, 22:20
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Frederick Williams, 21:50
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, Rupert, 19:50
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, Rupert, 19:19
fourier transformation and distributions, gilraen, 17:45
Q: equality elemination, Nils, 11:07
Re: Finite/infinite models, Chris Menzel, 10:10
Finite/infinite models, lacrimosalundin, 09:00
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Jan Burse, 08:44
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, Jan Burse, 08:41
Re: Practical Application of the "Liar's Paradox", John Jones, 08:24
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, John Jones, 08:13
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, John Jones, 08:05
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, John Jones, 08:02
Re: compactness theorem confusion, David C . Ullrich, 07:21
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, David C . Ullrich, 07:17
Re: Proper class.Proper class ?, Keith Ramsay, 03:13
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Keith Ramsay, 02:49
Re: compactness theorem confusion, Chris Menzel, 02:20

November 25, 2006

compactness theorem confusion, Snis Pilbor, 23:10
Re: Contingent Things, George Dance, 21:35
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 17:32
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 17:28
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 16:58
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 15:39
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, george, 15:14
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, george, 15:10
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, george, 14:40
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 14:33
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 14:30
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 10:59
Practical Application of the "Liar's Paradox", jerry kraus, 10:51
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 10:07
Re: Contingent Things, tg, 10:02
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 08:15
Re: Contingent Things, tg, 07:14

November 24, 2006

Re: texts for minimal logic, Jan Burse, 21:27
Re: Contingent Things, Brian Fletcher, 20:54
Re: Contingent Things, Brian Fletcher, 20:46
Re: Contingent Things, Brian Fletcher, 20:44
Re: Contingent Things, Brian Fletcher, 20:43
Re: Contingent Things, Brian Fletcher, 20:42
Re: Contingent Things, Brian Fletcher, 20:40
Re: Contingent Things, Brian Fletcher, 20:35
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 19:29
Re: Contingent Things, Bill Snyder, 18:34
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 17:10
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 17:08
Re: Contingent Things, Jan Burse, 16:55
Re: axioms of mathematical logic, smn, 16:48
Re: Contingent Things, Jan Burse, 16:46
Re: Contingent Things, Jan Burse, 16:45
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 16:40
Re: Is FLT in the language of PA?, Rupert, 16:37
Re: Contingent Things, Jan Burse, 16:37
Re: Contingent Things, Jan Burse, 16:35
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 16:19
Re: Contingent Things, Jesse F. Hughes, 15:38
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 15:29
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 15:24
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 15:16
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 14:49
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 14:47
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 14:40
axioms of mathematical logic, itaj, 14:39
Re: texts for minimal logic, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 14:21
Re: Contingent Things, chazwin, 14:16
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 13:26
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 13:15
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 13:14
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 13:09
Re: Contingent Things, Citizen Bob, 12:52
Re: Contingent Things, Citizen Bob, 12:49
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 12:49
Re: Contingent Things, Citizen Bob, 12:45
Re: Contingent Things, Ray Eston Smith Jr, 12:44
Re: Contingent Things, Citizen Bob, 12:43
Re: Contingent Things - Fallacies of Composition & Division, Paul Holbach, 12:41
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 12:31
Re: Contingent Things, tg, 12:19
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 12:15
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 12:01
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 11:59
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., Immortalist, 11:58
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 11:56
Re: Contingent Things, Wanker, 11:37
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 11:35
Re: Contingent Things - Fallacies of Composition & Division, Immortalist, 11:12
Re: Contingent Things, tg, 11:06
Re: Contingent Things, Jan Burse, 10:58
Re: Contingent Things, Jan Burse, 10:55
Re: Contingent Things, Wanker, 10:50
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 10:38
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 10:35
Re: Contingent Things, Citizen Bob, 10:34
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 10:32
Re: Contingent Things, tg, 10:17
Re: Contingent Things, Wanker, 10:12
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 10:03
Re: Contingent Things, Citizen Bob, 09:36
Re: Contingent Things, tg, 09:33
Re: Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 09:31
Re: Contingent Things, Brian Fletcher, 09:22
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 09:10
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 08:59
Is FLT in the language of PA?, george, 08:27
Contingent Things, Paul Holbach, 08:08
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 03:08
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 01:12
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 01:02

November 23, 2006

Re: Infinity Again, Aatu Koskensilta, 19:38
Re: Infinity Again, Aatu Koskensilta, 19:34
Re: Infinity Again, Jack Campin - bogus address, 19:22
Re: Possibility of the Empty World, Roberto Vescarelli, 18:45
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 16:10
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 15:56
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 15:53
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 15:20
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 14:50
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 14:45
Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 13:06
Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 12:58
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 12:54
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 12:45
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 11:35
Re: Infinity Again, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:04
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 10:43
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 10:14
Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 09:55
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 09:51
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 09:43
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., Therion Ware, 03:02
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., The Ghost In The Machine, 01:13

November 22, 2006

Re: Possibility of the Empty World, William Elliot, 23:20
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., Smiler, 22:37
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 21:17
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, lugita15, 18:38
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 15:28
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., Lucifer, 15:19
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., Therion Ware, 15:11
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., calee, 14:31
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., Immortalist, 14:19
Re: Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., calee, 14:04
Don't sweat the petty things & don't pet the sweaty things., Immortalist, 13:58
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 13:49
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 13:40
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 13:37
Re: Infinity Again, MoeBlee, 12:50
Re: Possibility of the Empty World, Paul Holbach, 12:19
Possibility of the Empty World, Paul Holbach, 11:56
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 07:10
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 06:56
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 06:35
Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 06:30
Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 06:28
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 06:19
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 06:08
Re: Infinity Again, Heinz Mau, 06:07
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 06:05
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 05:53
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 03:56
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 03:12

November 21, 2006

Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 22:37
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 21:21
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, ANTICHRIST EXPOSED!!!, 15:49
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 15:21
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 14:37
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 14:36
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 14:28
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 13:43
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 13:42
Re: Shoenfield 5.2e, mmweiss, 11:58
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 11:06
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 10:27
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 10:21
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 10:09
Block-Shifting Puzzle, Charlie-Boo, 09:07
Re: Infinity Again, Heinz Mau, 05:55
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 05:16
How to enumerate this subset of the assignment functions for a formula?, malsburg, 05:14
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 04:43
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 04:33
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 04:30
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 04:29
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 04:26
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 04:25
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 04:25
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 04:18
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 02:37

November 20, 2006

Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 22:06
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 22:04
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 21:08
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 20:29
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 15:58
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 15:30
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 14:12
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 13:54
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 13:38
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Charlie-Boo, 13:15
Re: Infinity Again, Jan Burse, 13:03
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 12:48
Re: Shoenfield 5.2e, george, 11:38
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 11:12
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 10:50
Re: Do reals really have to be genuine numbers?, R. Srinivasan, 08:43
Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 06:22
Re: Infinity Again, Bob Kolker, 06:21
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 04:28
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 04:22
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 03:22
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 03:18
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 03:08
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 02:45
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 02:38
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 02:24
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 02:13
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 02:10
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 01:44
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 00:32
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 00:27
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 00:09

November 19, 2006

Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 23:11
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 22:23
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 20:50
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 20:35
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 20:12
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 19:58
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 19:49
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 18:53
Re: Infinity Again, Jan Burse, 18:45
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 18:35
Re: Infinity Again, Jan Burse, 18:22
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 17:57
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 17:36
Re: The Gordian knot, The Ghost In The Machine, 16:07
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 15:22
A less than familiar mathematics?, John Jones, 14:48
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 14:38
Re: Neural Networks and Formal Systems, abo, 14:22
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 14:01
Stone, Bronze & Iron - The Three Age System (helped store things in the museum & by chance fit the historical reality), Immortalist, 12:59
Neural Networks and Formal Systems, LauLuna, 11:26
Re: Please Explain: How Is 5?F ***NOT*** Three Times Warmer Than 15?F????, Reef Fish, 07:54
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 03:23
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 03:17
Re: The Gordian knot, The Ghost In The Machine, 00:22
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 00:21
Re: Shoenfield 5.2e, James Dolan, 00:10
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 00:08

November 18, 2006

Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 23:52
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 23:44
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 20:27
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 20:17
Shoenfield 5.2e, mmweiss, 20:01
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 18:53
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 18:30
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 18:17
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 17:51
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 17:27
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 17:05
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 16:03
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 15:25
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 14:51
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 12:00
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:57
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 10:35
SIPTA Newsletter Announcement - New issue, Alessandro Antonucci, 09:58
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Frederick Williams, 09:04

November 17, 2006

Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 23:46
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 22:53
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 21:34
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 19:11
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 19:05
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 18:43
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 16:42
Re: Infinity Again, David R Tribble, 16:34
Re: Infinity Again, David R Tribble, 16:28
Re: Infinity Again, David R Tribble, 16:14
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 14:24
Existence : A Chinese Perspective, jerry kraus, 11:41
Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 11:31
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 11:02
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 10:39
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 10:34
Re: The Gordian knot, Henrik, 08:45
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 08:03
Re: The Gordian knot, Henrik, 07:50
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Daryl McCullough, 07:30
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 07:15
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 07:14
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Jack Campin - bogus address, 06:44
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 05:07
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 04:39
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 04:26
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 04:16
Re: The Gordian knot, Henrik, 04:04
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 00:04

November 16, 2006

Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 23:56
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Confutus, 22:28
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, george, 19:12
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, LauLuna, 15:34
Our Heavenly Father on 11-22-05 at 12:47 P.M., cattheon, 11:26
Re: The Gordian knot, The Ghost In The Machine, 10:41
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 10:26
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 07:55
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 07:18
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, R. Srinivasan, 04:42
Re: The L3 Revolution, galathaea, 02:46
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 02:25
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 02:23
Re: If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Peter_Smith, 02:17

November 15, 2006

Re: The Gordian knot, The Ghost In The Machine, 23:40
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 23:37
If (P & ~P) -> Q is not derivable then Goedel's formula is not derivable, Newberry, 23:27
Re: $$ logic wars $ einstein cantor godel wobble $$, Driftintones@xxxxxxx, 23:15
$$ logic wars $ einstein cantor godel wobble $$, galathaea, 18:56
Re: Silly Question, galathaea, 18:25
Property of recursive set, Atreides, 18:15
Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 16:24
Re: Man, Mr. bush Jr. sure is wicked evil eh?, People Person, 16:09
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:26
Re: Silly Question, Prisoner at War, 12:45
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, LauLuna, 12:08
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, abo, 12:02
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 11:20
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, abo, 10:58
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:51
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:44
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, abo, 10:26
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Peter_Smith, 10:23
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:01
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, abo, 09:46
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:26
Re: Post hoc, ergo illius causa, Ed Cryer, 09:19
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, abo, 08:59
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:55
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, abo, 08:35
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:02
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, abo, 07:42
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:39
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:30
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, lugita15, 06:20
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Peter_Smith, 06:11
Re: The Gordian knot, Henrik, 05:42
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 05:04
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, abo, 04:58
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, Peter_Smith, 02:37
Re: IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, aatu . koskensilta, 01:57

November 14, 2006

Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Chip Eastham, 23:44
Post hoc, ergo illius causa, ken.quirici@xxxxxxxxxx, 21:24
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 19:42
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, aatu . koskensilta, 19:35
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, lugita15, 19:24
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, aatu . koskensilta, 19:18
Re: Queue, mixi . mo, 19:12
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 18:54
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 18:11
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, lugita15, 18:02
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 17:32
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, lugita15, 16:27
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, lugita15, 16:27
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Peter_Smith, 16:05
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 15:48
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Scott, 14:48
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Scott, 14:46
Re: A few questions about formal systems, MoeBlee, 12:44
Re: Infinity Again, Jan Burse, 12:05
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 11:59
Re: Infinity Again, Jan Burse, 11:58
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 11:06
Re: A few questions about formal systems, abo, 10:38
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 10:33
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 10:26
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 10:08
IS THERE AN INEXHAUSTIBILITY PHENOMENON?, LauLuna, 09:52
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 09:28
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 07:47
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 07:47
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 07:34
Re: A few questions about formal systems, abo, 07:11
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 06:35
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, lugita15, 06:30
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 05:51
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Peter_Smith, 03:12
Re: A few questions about formal systems, abo, 01:26
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 01:15
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 00:59
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, Newberry, 00:55

November 13, 2006

Re: SING UP everyone! ~ 'Oold man ribber, dat oold man ribber ~ he jus' keep a-rollin' aloonngg!', The Ghost In The Machine, 21:27
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), george, 20:48
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), george, 20:19
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), george, 20:13
Re: Infinity Again, David R Tribble, 19:34
Re: PCI,PMI,WOP?, William Elliot, 19:28
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Chip Eastham, 18:56
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Peter_Smith, 18:45
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 18:16
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 18:12
Re: A few questions about formal systems, MoeBlee, 18:03
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Charlie-Boo, 18:00
Re: SING UP everyone! ~ 'Oold man ribber, dat oold man ribber ~ he jus' keep a-rollin' aloonngg!', John Jones, 18:00
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Charlie-Boo, 17:54
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 17:46
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 17:45
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Charlie-Boo, 17:40
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 17:31
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Charlie-Boo, 17:28
PCI,PMI,WOP?, HGL, 17:21
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 17:10
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 17:05
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Peter_Smith, 15:47
Re: SING UP everyone! ~ 'Oold man ribber, dat oold man ribber ~ he jus' keep a-rollin' aloonngg!', John Jones, 14:59
Re: SING UP everyone! ~ 'Oold man ribber, dat oold man ribber ~ he jus' keep a-rollin' aloonngg!', John Jones, 14:54
Re: SING UP everyone! ~ 'Oold man ribber, dat oold man ribber ~ he jus' keep a-rollin' aloonngg!', John Jones, 14:49
Re: SING UP everyone! ~ 'Oold man ribber, dat oold man ribber ~ he jus' keep a-rollin' aloonngg!', John Jones, 14:44
SING UP everyone! ~ 'Oold man ribber, dat oold man ribber ~ he jus' keep a-rollin' aloonngg!', John Jones, 14:39
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Peter_Smith, 14:21
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Scott, 13:44
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Scott, 13:38
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Scott, 13:34
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 13:24
Re: A few questions about formal systems, abo, 10:30
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 09:27
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 07:42
Re: What's this idea called., George Dance, 07:00
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 06:27
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, lugita15, 06:19
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 05:05
Re: <no subject>, Noehl, 04:37

November 12, 2006

Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 20:27
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 17:34
Re: What's this idea called., Edward Green, 17:14
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 16:48
Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, george, 16:41
Re: What's this idea called., Pouya D. Tafti, 16:33
Re: What's this idea called., Edward Green, 14:22
Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, Aatu Koskensilta, 13:48
Re: What's this idea called., George Dance, 13:42
Queue, John Jones, 13:34
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 13:19
Re: What's this idea called., Edward Green, 13:18
Re: What's this idea called., TruthSlave, 12:41
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 12:05
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 12:00
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 11:50
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, Newberry, 11:45
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 11:30
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:39
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, lugita15, 09:49
Re: Goedel's formula made simple, lugita15, 09:48
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 09:40
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 09:36
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 09:32
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 07:42
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 07:34
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 07:03
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 05:40
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 04:54
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Rupert, 04:51

November 11, 2006

Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 23:36
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 21:14
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 21:01
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 20:57
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 20:51
Re: A few questions about formal systems, lugita15, 20:46
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 20:45
Goedel's formula made simple, Newberry, 20:31
Re: context free grammars and ambiguity, William Elliot, 19:14
Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, Peter Olcott, 18:52
Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, Peter Olcott, 18:51
Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, Edward Green, 18:48
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 18:43
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Peter_Smith, 17:39
Re: A few questions about formal systems, Rupert, 17:19
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Peter_Smith, 16:31
Re: What's this idea called., galathaea, 16:05
MOMENTARIAN "New" Google Beta Group, Nick, 15:53
Re: What's this idea called., galathaea, 15:35
Re: Is the Halting Problem merely an ill-formed question?, george, 15:29
A few questions about formal systems, Newberry, 14:28
Re: What's this idea called., Jack Campin - bogus address, 13:55
Re: What's this idea called., TruthSlave, 13:20
Re: General Arithmetic, george, 12:43
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), george, 12:34
context free grammars and ambiguity, Per Freem, 12:32
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 11:16
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 10:28
Re: What's this idea called., Edward Green, 10:22
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:57
Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 05:39
Re: What's this idea called., Jan Burse, 05:22
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 04:25

November 10, 2006

Re: Infinity Again, Ross A. Finlayson, 20:45
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Charlie-Boo, 19:45
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Charlie-Boo, 19:41
Re: What's this idea called., galathaea, 19:31
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 19:23
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 19:12
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 17:29
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Peter_Smith, 16:25
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Peter_Smith, 16:25
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Scott, 15:51
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 15:48
Re: Prove that function is not primitive recursive., Atreides, 14:58
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 14:41
Re: Infinity Again, Jesse F. Hughes, 14:28
Re: Bias against unintelligent people, Jesse F. Hughes, 14:23
What's this idea called., Edward Green, 12:58
Re: Infinity Again, Charlie-Boo, 11:39
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 09:45
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Charlie-Boo, 09:17
Re: Infinity Again, David Marcus, 08:29
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 06:12
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 05:25
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 05:19
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 04:49
Re: On Ultrafinitism, Keith Ramsay, 03:32

November 09, 2006

Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Charlie-Boo, 20:47
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Charlie-Boo, 20:43
Re: problems-solutions, Charlie-Boo, 20:19
Re: Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Charlie-Boo, 20:08
Re: Real mathematics vs FOL, Mark Tarver, 19:53
Re: Proper class.Proper class ?, george, 18:23
Request for Reference/Link to example of defining a theory/logic., Scott, 16:32
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 13:44
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 13:21
Prove that function is not primitive recursive., Atreides, 13:14
Prove that function is not primitive recursive., Atreides, 13:14
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 09:11
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 08:53
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 05:15
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 04:39
Re: Infinity Again, Eckard Blumschein, 03:08

November 08, 2006

Re: texts for minimal logic, Jan Burse, 16:36
Re: Infinity Again, Virgil, 15:26
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Nick, 15:19
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 15:07
Re: texts for minimal logic, mordov, 14:41
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 12:37
Re: texts for minimal logic, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 12:25
Re: Intuitionistic troubles..., translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 12:13
Re: Intuitionistic troubles..., translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 12:06
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 11:53
Re: Real mathematics vs FOL, biubo, 11:47
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 10:12
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 09:56
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 09:48
Re: Real mathematics vs FOL, Nam Nguyen, 09:26
Re: Infinity Again, Tonico, 08:23
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, H. J. Sander Bruggink, 07:02
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Hero, 06:06
Re: Real mathematics vs FOL, biubo, 04:42

November 07, 2006

Re: Real mathematics vs FOL, Nam Nguyen, 23:59
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 22:35
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, tom, 21:20
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, tom, 21:20
Re: Problem Solving Textbook, Peter_Smith, 18:58
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 18:49
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 17:45
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, george, 17:35
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, george, 17:31
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 17:14
Re: Problem Solving Textbook, Ken Pledger, 15:19
Problem Solving Textbook, cjkogan111, 14:27
problems-solutions, S.L., 13:59
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 12:41
Real mathematics vs FOL, biubo, 12:37
Re: Bring an arbitrary square boolean matrix to the target matrix (developing fittness test - help please), Eric D., 12:16
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 10:02
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 09:51
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Charlie-Boo, 09:07
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 08:47
Re: Bring an arbitrary square boolean matrix to the target matrix (developing fittness test - help please), tomek, 08:30
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 07:43
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 07:12
Re: <no subject>, George Dance, 05:58
Re: <no subject>, William Elliot, 03:54
Re: <no subject>, Noehl, 03:26
Re: Absolutely undecidable statements, Aatu Koskensilta, 02:57
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 02:25
Re: <no subject>, Nicholas Sherlock, 01:45
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 01:36
Bring an arbitrary square boolean matrix to the target matrix (developing fittness test - help please), Eric D., 01:35
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 00:15
Re: <no subject>, William Elliot, 00:05

November 06, 2006

Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, einnew, 23:52
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 22:11
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 22:02
<no subject>, HGL, 21:53
Generalized PMI proof, HGL, 21:47
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL THE IGNORANT MASSES ?!!!!!, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer, 21:41
Re: Absolutely undecidable statements, Pierre Asselin, 21:03
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 20:52
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, jonathan, 20:43
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 20:05
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 20:01
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 19:43
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 18:55
johnreed take 1A - Modified October 18, 2006, johnlawrencereedjr, 16:45
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 16:02
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 15:58
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 15:48
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 15:42
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Charlie-Boo, 15:41
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 15:26
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 15:20
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 15:14
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 15:07
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 15:03
Re: Henkin models, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:58
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:56
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:48
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:38
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 14:31
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 14:16
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 13:53
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Mitch, 13:42
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, lugita15, 13:26
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 13:21
Re: Axioms & quantification, MoeBlee, 13:05
Re: CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Jan Burse, 12:58
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 12:38
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 12:33
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 11:56
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, aatu . koskensilta, 11:52
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Peter_Smith, 11:29
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Charlie-Boo, 11:09
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Charlie-Boo, 11:04
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 10:50
CBL (The system your professor doesn't want you to see.), Charlie-Boo, 10:41
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Charlie-Boo, 10:05
Re: Axiomatization of Ordinal Arithmetic, Charlie-Boo, 10:02
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Charlie-Boo, 09:59
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 09:56
Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Charlie-Boo, 09:47
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 09:08
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 09:02
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, jonathan, 04:32
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 01:47
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 01:34
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 00:34

November 05, 2006

Re: Axioms & quantification, Chris Menzel, 23:57
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Newberry, 22:21
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 22:01
Re: fallacy of (denying hypothesis)/(affirming conclusion), George Dance, 22:01
Re: General Arithmetic, george, 21:30
Re: Axioms & quantification, MoeBlee, 21:29
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 21:17
Re: Axioms & quantification, MoeBlee, 21:14
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 21:01
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 20:44
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 20:42
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 20:35
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 20:11
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 20:00
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 17:22
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, karandash2000, 16:20
Re: Absolutely undecidable statements, aatu . koskensilta, 14:15
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 14:11
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 13:49
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 13:43
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, aatu . koskensilta, 13:17
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Igor, 13:17
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 13:11
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 12:57
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Immortalist, 12:52
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Newberry, 12:47
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 12:27
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 12:25
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, AJAY SHARMA, 12:17
Re: texts for minimal logic, Peter_Smith, 12:16
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 12:10
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 12:05
Re: texts for minimal logic, Jan Burse, 11:38
Re: texts for minimal logic, Jan Burse, 11:25
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Nick, 11:12
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, clujdej, 11:02
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, karandash2000, 10:55
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 10:34
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 10:01
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 09:16
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Robert Cohen, 09:01
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 08:54
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, knucmo, 07:48
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, knucmo, 07:48
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Tron, 07:34
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, AJAY SHARMA, 07:22
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, AJAY SHARMA, 07:09
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, physicsajay, 07:07
Re: Petersen's magical argument, George Dance, 06:50
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 05:48
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 05:45
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 04:55
Re: texts for minimal logic, Peter_Smith, 04:41
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 04:19
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, physicsajay, 03:58
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Proginoskes, 02:51
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 01:43
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 01:23
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 00:49
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 00:48

November 04, 2006

Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, jonathan, 23:29
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Bob Kolker, 22:44
Re: Absolutely undecidable statements, Robert E. Beaudoin, 22:25
Re: Absolutely undecidable statements, Pierre Asselin, 22:01
Re: Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 21:56
Galileo (NOT Einstein) is inventor of Second postulate of Relativity, physicsajay, 21:26
Re: General Arithmetic, george, 21:20
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 19:48
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 19:29
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Per Freem, 19:04
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Per Freem, 18:43
Re: Intuitionistic troubles..., galathaea, 17:46
Re: Intuitionistic troubles..., galathaea, 17:17
Re: texts for minimal logic, galathaea, 16:41
Re: Absolutely undecidable statements, Rupert, 15:58
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Tobbs, 15:55
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, nosugarintea, 15:41
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, donstockbauer, 14:33
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, george, 14:01
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 13:30
Re: Axioms & quantification, Chris Menzel, 13:29
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Immortalist, 13:19
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, Sorcerer, 13:17
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 13:06
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 12:55
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 12:50
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, Sorcerer, 12:49
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, george, 12:45
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, Art Deco, 12:40
Re: Einsteinâ?Ts E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 12:24
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 12:24
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 12:22
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 12:13
Re: Einstein�?Ts E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck, Sorcerer, 12:06
Re: Einstein's E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, Sorcerer, 12:06
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 11:37
Re: Einstein’s E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 10:33
Re: Einstein’s E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 10:13
General Arithmetic, abo, 10:13
Re: Einstein’s E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck, physicsajay, 10:02
Re: Einstein’s E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, 09:44
Re: Axioms & quantification, Frederick Williams, 09:42
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 09:37
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 09:24
Re: Absolutely undecidable statements, Pierre Asselin, 09:11
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 09:09
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, abo, 08:38
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, 1Z, 08:08
Re: Intuitionistic troubles..., Jan Burse, 07:20
Re: texts for minimal logic, Mark Tarver, 06:44
Re: Intuitionistic troubles..., Mark Tarver, 06:38
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Tron, 05:58
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, William Elliot, 05:20
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 04:17
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, donstockbauer, 04:02
Re: Henkin models, aatu . koskensilta, 01:17
Einstein’s E=mc2 . Should Newton , De Pretto , Preston, Hasenohrl and Soddi, Planck be given credit for discovery of E=mc2. ?, physicsajay, 01:01

November 03, 2006

Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, William Elliot, 23:21
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, mikegordge, 20:38
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Sphere, 19:58
texts for minimal logic, translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 19:37
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Sphere, 19:33
Intuitionistic troubles..., translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 19:32
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 18:41
Re: fallacy of (denying hypothesis)/(affirming conclusion), translogi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 18:28
Re: Henkin models, Rupert, 17:37
Absolutely undecidable statements, Rupert, 17:31
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, George Dance, 17:15
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, 99, 17:14
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Sir Frederick, 17:03
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, George Dance, 17:03
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, donstockbauer, 16:30
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, donstockbauer, 16:03
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, donstockbauer, 15:52
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Immortalist, 15:11
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Immortalist, 15:07
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 14:33
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, donstockbauer, 14:09
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Sir Frederick, 14:07
Re: Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Immortalist, 13:48
Philosophical problems are false problems: they are due to linguistic misunderstandings, Immortalist, 13:46
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 12:54
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 12:51
Re: Axioms & quantification, MoeBlee, 12:32
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 12:20
Re: Program Synthesis and formallization?, Alan Smaill, 12:12
Re: Turing vs. Godel (Newbie Question), Alan Smaill, 12:00
Re: Axioms & quantification, Frederick Williams, 09:26
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:20
Re: Nameless critics on the Internet and critical analysis of Einstein’s E=mc2, physicsajay, 07:38
Re: The Gordian knot, John Jones, 07:24
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 06:23
Re: Henkin models, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:20
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:05
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 06:02
Henkin models, Rupert, 06:00
Re: The Gordian knot, Rupert, 05:58
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Aatu Koskensilta, 05:58
The Gordian knot, John Jones, 05:07
Re: On Ultrafinitism, R. Srinivasan, 03:28
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 03:19
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 03:05
fallacy of (denying hypothesis)/(affirming conclusion), gaya . patel, 00:40
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 00:34

November 02, 2006

Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 23:47
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 22:11
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, lugita15, 21:23
Re: Axioms & quantification, MoeBlee, 20:53
Re: Axioms & quantification, bluelabel, 20:21
Re: On Ultrafinitism, MoeBlee, 19:50
Re: Axioms & quantification, MoeBlee, 19:32
Re: Axioms & quantification, bluelabel, 18:36
Re: On Ultrafinitism, Rupert, 18:31
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 18:27
Re: We, as Scientists must show tolerance to opposite views, Phil Carmody, 17:19
Re: Axioms & quantification, MoeBlee, 17:12
Re: On Ultrafinitism, MoeBlee, 17:07
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Chris Menzel, 15:48
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, lugita15, 15:00
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 13:26
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, lugita15, 13:15
call anywhere free and talk usefull topiks, singh . xx . pawan, 11:44
Re: Simple Question regarding Simply Typed Lambda Calculus, Jan Burse, 11:43
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 07:50
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, lugita15, 06:29
to Record Human Dreams, jaggusid, 04:42
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 04:16
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Rupert, 04:09
Re: Simple Question regarding Simply Typed Lambda Calculus, William Elliot, 03:48
Simple Question regarding Simply Typed Lambda Calculus, Debajit Adhikary, 03:26
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Nam Nguyen, 02:48
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 02:45

November 01, 2006

Re: every formula is a logical consequence of its univeral closure., herbzet, 21:03
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, lugita15, 20:27
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, Peter_Smith, 16:36
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 16:22
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, MoeBlee, 16:19
Re: incompleteness and inconsistency, lugita15, 15:08
every formula is a logical consequence of its univeral closure., speechweb, 15:06
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, lugita15, 13:22
incompleteness and inconsistency, Per Freem, 11:26
Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Daryl McCullough, 10:33
Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Aatu Koskensilta, 10:25
Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Jesse F. Hughes, 09:47
Re: Question about Quine's New Foundations, Aatu Koskensilta, 09:44
Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Jesse F. Hughes, 09:43
Re: Smallest relation satisfying the following..., Frederick Williams, 09:26
Re: Axioms & quantification, bluelabel, 08:57
Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Aatu Koskensilta, 08:46
Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 08:45
Nameless critics on the Internet and critical analysis of Einstein’s E=mc2, physicsajay, 07:32
Re: Smallest relation satisfying the following..., David C . Ullrich, 07:03
Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Aatu Koskensilta, 06:55
Re: On Ultrafinitism, Eckard Blumschein, 04:46
Re: The L3 Revolution, William Elliot, 04:40
Re: Smallest relation satisfying the following..., Aatu Koskensilta, 03:07
Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 01:11

October 31, 2006

Re: The L3 Revolution, Confutus, 23:55
Flavor of linear logic corresponding to symmetric monoidal categories with duals?, metaweta, 23:30
Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Nam Nguyen, 23:07
Re: Axioms & quantification, Frederick Williams, 21:33
Re: Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?, Brian, 21:24
Re: BEING AND EXISTENCE, Paul Holbach, 20:45
[FAQ, 99/07/28] Mathematical logic on the web, Boris 'pi' Piwinger, 20:03
Re: On Ultrafinitism, Rupert, 19:49
Axioms & quantification, bluelabel, 19:24
Re: The L3 Revolution, William Elliot, 19:04
Smallest relation satisfying the following..., frob, 18:24
Re: how to define Thm in PRA, Peter_Smith, 17:34