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 23:41 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87tuxseg31.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <vY-dnW0ku6B8ZYDCnZ2dnUU7-XXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877duphmxf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EcKdneaehpPk0YPCnZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87blk1f6er.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <mJGdncJsz67nkILCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 7/27/2020 8:12 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
<cut>
>>> Thus Father_of(a26, a87) would be Boolean where a26, a87 are in the
>>> Domain of Humans.
>>
>> I'm going to stop commenting on this sort of issue. You won't say what
>> Father_of is and you won't even say what language you are using.
>> Mendelson uses 'a' with a subscript for constants in a formal language,
>> but you talk of a26 and a87 as being "in the domain" (with a capital
>> letter for some reason). I just don't have time to try to unravel what
>> you mean. It's possible that even you don't know if Father_of is a
>> predicate or a function symbol in the formal language, or a
>> corresponding relation or function in some interpretation of it.
>
> You can' possibly imagine that I a referring to the exactly same
> context as Mendelson unless I always copy his whole page 57 ?
(a) I don't sit here with Mendelson open at page 57 (it's 58 in my very
old edition).
(b) You changed the name so if I /was/ looking at Mendelson I would
assume you were referring to something different.
(c) You write a26 and a87 which Mendelson uses for constants in a
language and therefore make no sense in the context to his 'father of'
relation.
So get off your high-horse and make yourself understood. I won't keep
trying to work out what you mean. You tell me what you mean. By all
means use the same terms, syntax and wording as Mendelson, but you will
need to know how to use them correctly.
I still have no idea what you mean by "Father_of(a26, a87) would be
Boolean". If you mean what Mendelson talks about as 'father of' it is a
set of pairs. A subset of DxD. Boolean (whatever you mean by that in
this context) does not come into it.
>>> Mendelson refers to constants in the intpretation.
>>
>> He refers to them in the language, not in its interpretation. There are
>> no constants in an interpretation.
>>
>>> d. For each individual constant a_i of L, an assignment of some fixed
>>> element (a_i)^M of D.
>>
>> The constants are symbol in the language. The interpretation just has
>> corresponding elements of D.
>
> Corresponding elements that have the same name:
Prediction: thinking of either a_i or (a_i)^M as a name, and in
partucular that the have the same name, will confuse you sooner or
later.
> a_i is now wrapped up
> in parenthesis and superscripted: (a_i)^M
Yes. a_i is a constant symbol in some language, (a_i)^M is an element
if D. It is not a constant (that's a syntax category), it is a "thing"
something in the actual interpretation.
If you actually defined a language and then wrote out an interpretation
of it you might get to understand. For example, if you chose Q, I'd
then show you an interpretation of Q where the zero constant in the
language is taken to be 42 in the interpretation (and all the axioms
will still be true).
> 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.
Yes, you will be correct if you keep quoting Mendelson.
> Taking Mendelson literally then the relation of "father of" for two
> constants would be <(a_26)^M, (a_87)^M> that really seems way too
> clumsy.
No.
(a) There is no evidence in Mendelson that the language that has some
predicate that is being interpreted as 'father of' has at least 87
different constants. Most languages have one or two.
(b) The phrase "'father of' for two constants" is jumbling up exactly
the categories that all this is intended to disambiguate. "father of"
is a relation in the interpretation. It is not a predicate in the
language being interpreted.
(c) The is no reason to assume that the members of D that correspond to
the two unlikely constants a26 and a87 either are or are not in the
'father of' relation. I.e. it might be the case that <(a_26)^M,
(a_87)^M> ∈ 'father of' but it equally might not.
> We can tell that Father_of(x, y) is a relation or a function in an
> interpretation as soon as we define D as the set of humans.
No.
> The relation Father_of(x, y) on the set of humans would specify a set
> of ordered pairs unless (x, y) are bound to quantifiers or are
> constants.
Father_of(x, y) is not a relation, it's a formula. I am finding writing
my explanations to be too time-consuming so I might start to simply
point out the first mistake. There are others in that sentence.
> Until a relation has its domain defined it is gibberish.
Relations are sets of pairs. They can never be gibberish.
> It is like the sentence: "I am going to go to..."
No.
> I have been defining the domain of my relation using this syntax
> https://sites.math.washington.edu/~aloveles/Math300Winter2011/m300Quantifiers.pdf
>
> For years. Once a predicate/relation has a defined domain then it does
> have meaning and it not a mere poem.
You are supposed to be learning how predicates get their meaning. That
document just assumes the usual interpretation. Math 101 will not get
into the details you are trying to learn here.
>>> So once a predicate is anchored to a relation in a specific domain
>>> then the syntax specifies semantics?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Then both of these can be understood:
> ∀y ∈ humans ∃x ∈ humans (father_of(x,y) )
> a26 ∈ humans a87 ∈ humans (father_of(a26, a87) )
>
> I guess that we still must specify that father_of(x,y) is a relation
> between x and y, it could be a function on siblings.
Oh heavens! What language is that first one written in? If it is a
formal language whose interpretations we with to talk about, Mendelson
would write it as
∀y∃x father_of(x,y)
but then father_of would be a predicate not a relation. So no, it must
written in a less formal language about sets. Then it says that there
is some x for every y such that y is in the father_of relation with x.
But it does not specify that relation. For that we'd need an
interpretation of this language of sets. And you'd better not use
another language talk about /that/ interpretation because then you'd
need yet another interpretation.
At some point we have to stop and talk about something we know about.
That's why Mendelson did not write what you did but he explained the
relation in English: "the relation 'father of' can be identified with
the set of all ordered pairs (x,y) such that x is the father of y.".
Now that I understand.
The second line... I don't even know where to start. Perhaps you
missed out some logical connectives?
>>> The predicate merely specifies the order of its arguments.
>>
>> All you know about a predicate is its 'arity' -- the number of
>> 'arguments'. As to order, P(a, b) is not the same formula as P(b, a)
>> but I would not say that a predicate "specifies the order of its
>> arguments".
>
> If we do not somehow specify that the order is significant then we are
> failing to specify a key required element. If it is unconventional to
> say that a predicate requires an n-tuple argument list then we have to
> break and correct this convention and say it anyway.
Of course the order is significant. Do you have some problem with what
Mendelson is saying? If so, ask.
>>> The WFF specifies some of the meaning of the predicate.
>>
>> We write formulas -- specifically axioms and definitions -- with that
>> intention, but the key point is that there is no meaning without an
>> interpretation.
>
> That is not true.
You are wrong.
> I provided an example of DeMorgan's theorem in propositional logic
> that got all of its meaning from the conventional meaning of the
> logical symbols of the language.
Yes, that is the "usual interpretation". The meaning comes from that,
not the symbols. If the formal symbols of the language are interpreted
to be something else, you won't get the same meaning.
So far we've been talking about interpretations in general, but the
interesting ones are those that make the axioms true. These are called
models. For those, some sets of axioms so constrain the models that all
models are "essentially the same" (formally they are all isomorphic in a
very specific sense). Such theories are called "categorical" and the
effect is that we might as well think of them as being about one of the
models, since all the models have the same "shape".
This is the case for propositional logic which is why it's easy to
forget that the symbols don't mean anything. We can think of the domain
as {1, 0} or as {banana, grape} but the functional relationships between
these is so tightly specified that all we are doing is renaming what we
usually call true and false.
>> The goal of all this is be able to answer the question
>> of whether a theory (a language + axioms + inference rules) has a model
>> -- an interpretation in which the axioms are true. Most working
>> mathematicians then forget about the model and think of the theory as
>> actually being about the domain of their preferred model, but it's
>> always really anything that is a model of the theory.
>
> Yet because the logic symbols already have a built-in defined semantic
> meaning some logic sentences can be decided outside of any domain.
See above.
>>> Whenever a WFF depends upon any semantics outside of the scope formal
>>> language the variables or constants of the WFF must refer to a domain
>>> of discourse.
>>
>> I don't like that wording. I don't know what you mean by most of it.
>>
>>> To determine whether or not propositional WFF are satisfied may not
>>> require a domain of discourse outside of propositional logic.
>>> ∀p∀q (¬(p ∧ q) ↔ ¬(¬p ∨ ¬q)) can be verified with truth tables.
>>
>> That can be formally seen as an interpretation. The domain is usually
>> taken to be {t, f} and the function symbols of the language (¬, ∧, ∨, ↔)
>> are associated with functions from {t, f}^n to {t, f} (n is 1 for ¬ and
>> 2 for the others). The result is a closed formula that is true.
>
> OK that makes sense. The domain is Boolean. They are called functions
> because they map to exactly one element of the domain.
>
> Is that the way that it always works?
>
> (a) A thing that always maps to exactly one unique element of the
> domain is always called a function.
No.
> (b)
> A unary relation maps to a set of 0 or more elements of the domain.
> A binary relation maps to a set of 0 or more ordered pairs of the
> domain.... ?
No always. Some people define a 1-tuple so <x> != x.
> Can a 2-ary predicate correspond to a ternary relation that maps to
> ordered triples of the domain?
"Correspond" is so vague the answer is probably yes. But it might be no
for what you really have in mind.
>>>> Both the 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.
>>>
>>> How would we specify a 4-tuple formula that is tied to a 2-ary
>>> predicate?
>>
>> Did you study the example?
>
> Which example?
R(x, x) vs. R(x, y).
>> R is a binary predicate, and yet the formula
>> R(x, x) is satisfied by a set of 1-tuples -- plain elements of D. R(x,
>> y) is satisfied by pairs and, R(x, y+z) by triples. The predicate has
>> an arity, the formula has a number of free variables. The two numbers
>> are not always the same.
>
> I have to know which example before I can fully get this.
Not sure what you think the example is other than the formulas I am
talking about in that paragraph.
>> Maybe you can now answer your own question -- a formula using a binary
>> predicate that is satisfied by one or more 4-tuples.
>>
>>> It would seem best to have all of the unbound variables as arguments
>>> to the predicate.
>>
>> You are, I think, talking about a sort of "natural" formula consisting
>> of only an n-ary predicate with n distinct variables. But no one needs
>> that to talk about the corresponding n-tuples that satisfy it in some
>> interpretation. Can you see why? (Think a bit before you read on.)
>
> It wouldn't have to be: "n-ary predicate with n distinct variables."
> It could be "n-ary predicate with n free variables."
If the formula has only a predicate term, the variables must be free.
> I can't imagine that the free variables could be any variables besides
> those specified as arguments.
Forget my question. I think you've got lost. Maybe try to do it later.
>> .
>> .
>> It's because there is already a name for that set of pairs -- it's just
>> the relation that is associated with the predicate symbol. Take a
>> language with a binary predicate F. Under the interpretation that has
>> domain "humans" and associates F with the relation is_the_father_of the
>> set of pairs the satisfy F(x1, x2) is just call is_the_father_of.
>
> When the domain is humans:
> With two unbound arguments it maps to a set of ordered pairs.
> With two bound arguments or constants it maps to Boolean.
I hope all the re-wording does not end up confusing you. I assume you
are not disagreeing with me.
> With one unbound argument it maps to a set of humans.
> With one constant argument it maps to a single unique human.
What is "it"?
> I am not sure what it maps to with one universally or existentially
> quantified argument.
>
> ∀x ∈ humans (father_of(x))
> ∃x ∈ humans (father_of(x))
No idea. I don't know what language this is. I don't know what your
"maps to" is referring to. You are fighting hard to re-word everything
with your own terms. This is not a good strategy if you want to be
understood.
I know you will think I am just messing about, but I am not. This
subject involves lots of apparently similar things (predicates and
relations for example, of formulas in L and formulas about an
interpretation of L) with crucially different meanings.
>>>> Formally
>>>> it's a subset of D^n x D with the important function property (that f(x)
>>>
>>> It is a mapping of D^n possible combinations of values for its n
>>> arguments each to a unique element of D, thus we lose the last x D.
>>> It is actually D^n x 1.
>>
>> No. Do you know what X x Y means in set theory?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product
>
> In mathematics, specifically set theory, the Cartesian product of two
> sets A and B, denoted A × B, is the set of all ordered pairs (a, b)
> where a is in A and b is in B.
>
> To denote all the ordered pairs in A we can say A x A.
> To denote all the ordered triples in A we can say A x A x A.
> To denote all the n-tuples in A we can say A^n.
> Father_of(x, y) specifies a subset of D x D.
I hate the vague word "specifies". As a formula in some formal
language, Father_of(x, y) will, under some interpretation with domain D,
be satisfied by a (possibly empty) subset of DxD. As a binary relation
on a set D, Father_of is a subset of DxD.
> If we have a sizeof(D) then the same notation specifies the number of
> n-tuples.
Informally, yes. We write |D| for the "size" of a set.
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Successor is identical in each.
>>
>> So, no, you can't? It's the first step in answering my question, but I
>> think I asked way too much. I suggest you don't try yet.
>
> I did not read that in a book.
I am sure you didn't. I suggest you don't try for now. Frankly I'd be
happy if you simply gave a language for Q (or PA) and specified /any/
interpretation for it. I've suggested this often enough.
>>>>>>> 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>.
>>>
>>> An integer is a whole number that can be either greater than 0, called
>>> positive, or less than 0, called negative. Zero is neither positive
>>> nor negative. ... Zero is called the origin, and it's neither negative
>>> nor positive. For every positive integer, there's a negative integer
>>> an equal distance from the origin.
>>
>> That rather laboured answer suggests you disagree with my answer. I
>> don't see why you disagree.
>
> Your answer is more concise than mine yet we must explicitly add the
> ordered pair of <0,0> to make your answer complete because -0 does not
> exist.
What? Where do you get that idea from?
>>>>>>> 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))?
>>>
>>> I use infix where I can.
>>
>> Ah. Did you not know you could write X ⊆ Y? Reading a basic book about
>> set theory would really help.
>
> (y ∩ z) ⊆ ∅ has the function precede the predicate yet the predicate
> is specified as preceding the function in (i).
So? Do you have any problem with either (y ∩ z) ⊆ ∅ or ∅ ⊇ (y ∩ z)?
--
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