Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) |
| Date | 2020-07-27 00:33 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <877duphmxf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <Zd6dnViKxvw77obCnZ2dnUU7-fnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877dusjsda.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <KICdnZQ7S4KjY4HCnZ2dnUU7-e3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zh7mgiux.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vY-dnW0ku6B8ZYDCnZ2dnUU7-XXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 7/26/2020 2:46 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 7/24/2020 8:28 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/24/2020 5:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 7/22/2020 6:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>> <cut>
>>>>>>> My understanding: [predicates are functions that evaluate to Boolean]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take care here. That's programmer language. The interpretation of a
>>>>>> predicate is a set of pairs. There's not really any evaluation and
>>>>>> there is definitely no need for a predicate to be computable. See the
>>>>>> next comment for why the distinction actually helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh I see the predicate Father_of(x, y) normally evaluates to Boolean
>>>>> for a specific ordered pair of individual people. As a relation on a
>>>>> domain it defines the whole set of ordered pairs that satisfy that
>>>>> relation.
>>>>
>>>> It /is/ the set of pairs that are in the relation. It does not
>>>> "evaluate to Boolean". Nothing is evaluated. For a relation R the
>>>> notation R(x, y) is just another way of writing (x, y) ∈ R.
>>>
>>> Closed WFF are true or false, Open WFF specify sets.
>>
>> True! But I don't know why you say it here.
>
> Making sure that my understanding is correct.
I asked why /here/. The fact that you say it here where it is
irrelevant makes me suspect you don't understand the concepts, despite
having said a true thing. Was it in reply to what I said or a random
true thing you thought you'd say?
>>>>> constant h1 ∈ human beings
>>>>> constant h2 ∈ human beings
>>>>> (h1,h2) ∈ Father_of(x, y) would assert that h1 is the father of h2.
>>>>
>>>> Please, for the moment, no poems. None of that is written correctly.
>>>
>>> To use the Mendelson notation (a26, a87) ∈ Father_of(x, y)
>>> would be true or false.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't have time to teach you how to write mathematics,
>> but the key is precision. I can take a guess at what you mean, but
>> that's not what the symbols are for. They should remove the need for
>> guessing.
>
> It is crucially important that I understand how to encode constants in
> WFF.
Then you are on your own because I don't know what you mean by encode.
I will concentrate on trying to help you understand languages and
interpretations.
> The ordered pair of two particular individual humans: (a26, a87) a26
> is either the father of a87 or not.
There are always two kinds of formula involved here. There are those of
the formal language, and those we use to talk about an interpretation.
If you don't make it clear which you are talking about there is no way I
can understand you.
But I will say that the usual terminology is to talk about constants (or
0-ary functions) in the formal language, and individuals in the
interpretation.
>> (My guess: You have a language with a binary relation symbol Father_of
>> and you are talking about an interpretation that maps that relation
>> symbol to an actual set of pairs you call Father_of. The domain in
>> question has (at least) two elements that you call a26 and a87. If so,
>> you should write (a26, a87) ∈ Father_of, or more conventionally,
>> Father_of(a26, a87). If this guess is wrong, then I really have no idea
>> what your symbols are supposed to mean.)
>
> Father_of(x, y) with x and y unbound specifies a set.
It could specify a banana. You have not said what formal language you
are using, nor what interpretation you are applying. And even then I
might not know which you are talking about.
> Father_of(a26, a87) is a closed WFF that is true or false.
WF are true or false in an interpretation. If the domain of discourse
is London train stations, Father_of(Paddington, Mile End) might indeed
be true. It depends what relation Father_of denotes. But equally
Father_of could be a function symbol and Father_of(Paddington, Mile End)
could be Green Park. You are relying on the English meaning of the
symbol to convey something the syntax does not. You really should stop
doing that.
>>> (a26, a87) ∈ Father_of(x, y)
>>
>> See above. Can't you stick to words for the moment? It will avoid a
>> lot of side problems.
>
> I really need to learn the notation.
Have you got a basic textbook on mathematics?
>>>>>>> c. For each function letter f^n_j of L, an assignment of an n-place
>>>>>>> operation (f^n_j)^M in D (that is, a function from D^n into D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My understanding: [functions evaluate to non _Boolean]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More to be wary of here. If the interpretation domain is {true, false}
>>>>>> or includes {true, false} then functions can "evaluate" to something you
>>>>>> might call _Boolean. (I don't know exactly what you mean by _Boolean.)
>>>>>> And that's fine. There is no confusion with predicates because they are
>>>>>> not functions and you can't mix functions and predicates in arbitrary
>>>>>> ways.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that predicates always [end up with] a possibly empty set of
>>>>> n-tuples. What is the correct term for [end up with]?
>>>>
>>>> A unary is a subset of D. A binary predicate is a subset of DxD. An
>>>> n-ary predicate is a subset of D^n. That's the best I can do. I don't
>>>> know what else you are trying to say.
>>>
>>> That works.
>>>
>>>>>> And again, there is no need for functions to be computable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My understanding: [father_of(x) would evaluate to a unique constant
>>>>>>> element of the set of humans]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would use use "evaluate". And there is no need for unique -- the
>>>>
>>>> Argh! I meant to say: 'I would /not/ use "evaluate"'.
>>>
>>> Father_of(x) ∈ Humans = y
>>
>> That just hints at something. I have no idea what you are really
>> saying. The (modern) way to say that a function maps Humans to Humans
>> is
>>
>> Father_of: Humans -> Humans
>
> The conditional symbol?
No. It's an arrow. Sometimes ↦ is used. Some people use an arrow for
implication as well. There are just not enough symbols to go round, but
we can use ⇒ for the logical connective so → should be clear.
> Father_of: Humans ⇒ Humans
No, what I wrote.
>>>>>>> My estimate: [functions must always evaluate to elements of D]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's explicitly in the text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great. Any probably also sets of elements of D. GrandfathersOf(x).
>>>>
>>>> No. An n-ary function always maps an n-tuple to an element of D, never
>>>> to a set of elements of D. Of course, if the domain of the
>>>> interpretation includes both people and sets of people, then there is no
>>>> problem finding a function like GrandfathersOf(x).
>>>
>>> An n-ary predicate always maps to a set of n-tuples?
>>
>> No. An n-ary predicate is a set of n-tuples. But why are you now
>> talking about predicates when I was trying explain a misunderstanding
>> about functions?
>
> <quote Mendelson>
> For each predicate letter A^n_j of L, an assignment of an n-place
> relation (A^n_j)^M in D.
>
> if D is the set of human beings, then the relation “father of” can be
> identified with the set of all ordered pairs (x, y) such that x is the
> father of y.
> </quote Mendelson>
OK. Given the context where I used "maps to" in relation to functions I
thought you were using it in the same sense. You meant "maps to" in the
sense of Mendelson's "can be identified with". There's nothing wrong
about that, but the context made your words very confusing.
(And my wording was bad. I should have said "an n-ary relation (not
predicate) is a set of n-tuples". Then it would have been clear we were
talking at cross purposes.)
> It can't possibly be the case that an n-ary predicate <is> a set of
> n-tuples because predicates have arguments and n-tuples do no have
> arguments.
Actually I meant relation, not predicate. A predicate is just a symbol
in a formal language. It is nothing more nor less than marks on a page
(so to speak). But we write relations as if they have arguments:
a R b
R(a, b)
(a, b) ∈ R
are all ways to write the same thing: that a and b are on some specified
relationship with each other.
> Are these correct:
> An open n-ary predicate specifies a set of n-tuples.
Hm... not really. It's the relation the predicate is identified with
that matters, and it's a formula, not a predicate that is satisfied.
Both they formulas R(x, x) and R(x, y) may be satisfied in some
interpretation -- i.e. they "specify a set of n-tuples -- but the
predicate on it's own does not. Note the the arity of n-tuples is
determined by the formula, not the predicate.
> An closed n-ary predicate specifies a Boolean value.
Closed is a property of formulas. All closed formulas of a language L
are either true of false under some interpretation of L. I can guess
what you mean by "a closed predicate" but it's not helpful.
> A function specifies one element of the domain.
Kind of. A function symbol, in the formal language, specifies nothing.
In some interpretation, a function is a mapping from D^n to D. Formally
it's a subset of D^n x D with the important function property (that f(x)
is unique). So the function (in an interpretation) specifies the whole
mapping. A particular application of the function specified one element
of the domain.
> Now that I have dealt with open WFF, I know that
> Less_Than(x, y) and (x < y) specify sets of ordered pairs in ℕ.
If the interpretation has domain ℕ and Less_Than is identified with the
usual less than relation, then yes, those formulas are satisfied by some
subset of ℕ x ℕ.
> Whereas Less_Than(3, 7) and (3 < 7) specify Boolean true.
Are these formulas in the formal language? Is 3 just shorthand for
S(S(S(0)))? If so, then the usual interpretation will determine that
they are true.
> If you specify the entire process as operations on finite strings then
> all the semantics is self-defined.
Too vague and I don't want to spend time trying to find out what you
really mean. I know how computable functions of string relate to
provability and truth and I don't think you can add to that
understanding.
> Equal(Sum(2,5), 7) is transformed into the constant: TRUE.
Stop writing formulas without saying what the language is. Stop saying
what is or is not true without saying what interpretation you are
considering.
>> Here's what I ask a student to do now to clear this up: Construct an
>> interpretation of PA (or Q which is simpler) such that the predicate <
>> (as usually defined) is interpreted to be >.
>>
>> If you do nothing else in reply to the post, do that.
>
> ∃x (Sy = x) // (x > y)
> ∃y (Sx = y) // (x < y)
You've just read what an interpretation is in the book. I asked for
one. These are two formulas that seem to be attempts to define < and >.
Can you specify a language for either Q or PA? Once you have the
language you will see what is needed to have an interpretation of the
formulas of that language.
>>>> Do the exercises first. That way I can be sure you really have a sound
>>>> intuitive understanding of what the formal stuff is intended to pin
>>>> down. It's much easier to understand the next two pages if you are 100%
>>>> sure about the informal notion of satisfiable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I worked on them today. I agree that it is best that I prove my
>>> understanding by those two exercises.
>>>
>>> 2.10 (a)(i) The set of the product of two positive integers >= 2
>>> (1...,2...) and (2...,1...)
>>
>> I think you know the answer, but you can't write it.
>>
>> "..." usually means "and so on". You've written only two pairs
>> (Mendelson uses <a,b> but I assume you are using (a,b) for a pair), both
>> which appear to have infinite "things" (I can;t tell what) in each part
>> of the pair.
>>
>> Unfortunately I can't understand your English either. The phrase "the
>> set of" is usually followed by a plural not a singular.
>
> Every pair of positive integers (x,y) such that x*y >= 2.
Yes!
>> So I'm lost. I suggest you use {} for sets and <> for pairs and
>> consider starting the English with "(i) is satisfied by the set of pairs
>> such that...". Often is helps to name the members of the pair: "the set
>> of pairs <a,b> such that...".
>>
>>> 2.10 (b)(i) The set of the sum of two integers = 0
>>> (0,-1,-2...)(0,1,2...)
>> I see no set. I see no pairs. Again, I think you know the answer, but
>> you can't express it. Try with the form of words above.
>
> The set of ordered pairs (x,y) such that (x + y = 0)
> (a) Every negative integer x and its absolute value
> (b) Every positive integer x and x * -1
> (c) 0, 0
Yes. I'd say the pairs <x, -x>.
>>> 2.10 (c)(i) The domain is the set of all sets of integers, A^2_1(y,z) is
>>> y ⊆ z, f^1_1(y, z) is y ∩ z, and a1 is the empty set ∅.
>>>
>>> ⊆(y ∩ z, ∅)
>>
>> Yes, though it's much more common to write ⊆ using infix notation.
>
> I was writing it the way that it was specified.
Then why not do that for the function and write ⊆(∩(y, z))?
> To use infix notation would require rearranging the order from the
> order specified.
Yes, as you did for the function. It makes things much clearer but I
really don't mind. I can read either.
>>> I would think that the empty set would have no subsets.
>>
>> Except the empty set itself (S ⊆ S for all sets), so the condition is
>> that (a ∩ b) = ∅, since only when (a ∩ b) = ∅ can (a ∩ b) be a subset of
>> ∅.
>
> That a set is a subset of itself is incoherent.
x ≤ x but not(x < x). x ⊆ x but not(x ⊂ x). But it's not important
what you think about the words. There are two set relation that are
just like ≤ and <. One includes equality and the other does not.
> Likewise with a set being a member of itself.
Entirely different. That would lead to all kinds of technical issues.
The fact that ⊆ is defined to be ⊂ or = (just like ≤) is a trivial
simplification to avoid writing (a ⊂ b) ∨ (a = b) all the time. By all
means make the voice in your head say "proper subset of or equal to"
every time you see ⊆. The mathematics is what matters.
>>> The set of the intersection of y and z is a subset of the empty set.
>>
>> That's the gist of is. Mendelson is expecting you to know that only the
>> empty set can be a subset of the empty set, and he probably expects you
>> to know the technical term for sets with no common elements: they are
>> called disjoint sets. Can you write the answer succinctly now?
>
> I disagree that the empty set has any subsets.
No one cares. That boat has sailed. The empty set has no proper
subset, but every set has itself as a subset. If you don't want to use
those words you need make up your own and make it clear you are using
your own.
>>> // I am not sure what this: "⇒" means in this context
>>> ii. A^2_1(x1, x2) ⇒ A^2_1(x2, x1)
>>> iii. (∀x1)(∀x2)(∀x3) (A^2_1(x,x2) ∧ A^2_1(x2,x3) ⇒ A^2_1(x1,x3))
>>
>> It's the logical connective with truth table
>>
>> T T T
>> T F F
>> F T T
>> F F T
>>
>> By the way, having everything with a subscript (and many things with a
>> superscript) makes the formal definition that comes later much simpler
>> but it's a pain for this kind of thing. I re-wrote then exercises in
>> the simpler form:
>>
>> (i) A(f(x, y), a)
>> (ii) A(x, y) -> A(y, x)
>> (iii) ∀x∀y∀z[ A(x, y) ∧ A(y, z) -> A(x, z) ]
>>
>> with these interpretations:
>>
>> (a) D = Z+, A is >=, f is multiplication and a is 2.
>> (b) D = Z, A is =, f is addition and a is 0.
>> (c) D = 2^Z, A is ⊆, f is intersection and a is {}.
>
> The key question is how do we apply the Boolean relation ⇒ between
> sets of ordered pairs?
You don't. It's not a programming language. F1 ⇒ F2 is satisfied by
all assignments except those that satisfy F1 and not F2. (F1 ⇒ F2 is
defined to be ¬F1 ∨ F2. Its negation is therefore F1 ∧ ¬F2.)
> I already took a good guess about this in another reply. You can
> answer this question there.
Yes, I have done. There, you clearly got the idea about satisfying
formulas with connectives like ⇒.
--
Ben.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-18 15:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-19 03:35 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 11:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-19 11:25 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 12:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-19 11:56 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 13:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-19 14:06 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-19 13:39 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 17:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-19 15:57 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-20 01:55 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 23:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-19 23:15 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 12:56 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-20 12:48 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-20 14:49 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 21:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-21 10:51 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-21 12:02 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-21 12:12 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-21 20:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-21 19:35 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-22 09:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-22 09:23 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-22 10:21 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-22 13:22 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 18:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-20 18:28 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 21:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 11:59 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 21:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 20:03 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-21 10:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-21 10:47 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-21 11:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-21 11:01 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-21 19:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-21 19:23 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-22 09:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-22 09:11 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-22 17:02 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-21 11:31 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-21 20:22 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-21 00:12 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 19:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-22 03:32 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-07-22 05:39 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-22 10:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-23 00:54 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-23 21:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-07-24 16:31 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 12:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-24 12:06 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 13:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-24 11:38 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 14:05 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-24 12:33 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 14:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-07-26 15:05 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-24 19:57 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 14:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-24 14:43 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 16:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-24 15:38 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 17:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-24 15:57 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-24 16:11 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-24 15:52 -0700
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-07-24 19:02 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-26 10:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-26 10:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-26 10:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-24 20:20 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 14:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-25 00:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 19:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 12:02 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-24 23:49 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 18:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-25 02:28 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-24 22:18 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-24 21:58 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-25 01:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-25 10:31 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-25 12:04 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-25 14:45 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-26 00:51 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-25 22:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-26 12:10 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-25 22:53 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-26 20:46 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-26 16:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-26 15:46 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-26 22:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-27 00:28 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-26 17:05 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-27 02:52 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-27 00:30 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-27 00:33 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-26 22:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-27 14:12 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 12:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-27 23:41 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-27 17:37 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 19:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-27 19:57 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 21:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-27 20:45 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 21:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-27 22:58 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 00:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-27 23:16 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 00:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-28 00:05 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 10:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-28 21:32 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 22:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 02:01 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 20:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 03:11 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 21:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 03:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 21:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 17:33 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 11:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 11:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 22:58 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 17:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-29 00:51 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 21:05 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-29 12:04 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 12:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-29 20:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 15:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-30 01:31 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-30 10:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-30 17:45 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 10:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 17:50 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 11:57 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 20:30 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 14:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 22:52 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 17:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-29 01:00 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 21:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-29 15:47 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 13:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-29 12:13 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 15:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-29 14:43 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-29 22:37 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 18:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-30 02:01 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 10:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-01 01:48 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-01 10:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-01 21:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-01 15:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-02 00:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-02 09:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-02 17:29 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-03 09:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-03 17:39 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-02 18:04 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-01 23:19 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-29 16:33 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 13:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-29 12:02 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 14:57 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-29 22:47 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-29 15:33 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 20:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 18:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-30 02:38 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 10:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-01 00:47 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-01 01:30 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-01 12:55 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-01 10:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-01 20:28 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-01 15:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-02 00:11 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-02 09:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-02 17:20 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-03 09:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-03 17:46 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-30 00:28 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 23:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-29 16:43 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 14:02 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-30 00:36 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-29 21:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-29 21:50 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-29 21:55 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 10:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-31 12:45 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 14:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-31 13:13 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 16:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-31 14:42 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 18:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-31 14:44 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-31 14:02 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-31 17:58 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 22:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 10:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-30 13:39 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 10:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-01 00:58 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-01 10:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-01 21:02 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-02 09:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-02 17:45 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-03 09:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-03 17:46 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-03 13:22 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-07-30 20:35 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-30 12:57 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-30 17:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-07-30 23:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-30 16:30 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-07-31 01:31 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-30 20:36 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 00:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-30 20:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-30 17:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-30 16:31 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-30 20:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-30 20:40 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-31 01:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-28 10:41 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 12:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-07-28 08:23 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-28 09:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-26 13:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-26 22:45 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 16:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-27 23:51 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-26 22:46 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-27 17:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V33 (Mendelson Satisfiability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-28 00:22 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 15:57 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-25 00:03 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V31 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-24 19:10 -0500
csiph-web