Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > sci.logic > #345875

Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis

Path csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math, sci.math.symbolic
Subject Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis
Followup-To sci.logic
Date Sun, 10 May 2026 10:10:26 +0300
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Lines 149
Message-ID <10tpb14$74fa$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <10qml9j$1e38l$1@dont-email.me> <10rctao$1ldr4$1@dont-email.me> <10rdl0d$1s399$1@dont-email.me> <10rfog6$2eb3r$1@dont-email.me> <10rg610$2ibmn$2@dont-email.me> <10ri4g2$348mp$1@dont-email.me> <10riua5$3c448$1@dont-email.me> <10rkksl$3t92u$1@dont-email.me> <10rlgir$56j4$2@dont-email.me> <10rncn3$n96k$1@dont-email.me> <10rvv5i$37bu1$1@dont-email.me> <10s25i2$3rpco$1@dont-email.me> <10s32v6$4jfl$1@dont-email.me> <QI8FR.31217$3J1.18749@fx05.iad> <10t5neq$2c8h4$8@dont-email.me> <10t6ut2$2ob2m$1@dont-email.me> <10t73cb$2phvg$1@dont-email.me> <10t9dhl$3evii$1@dont-email.me> <10t9j9f$3g5td$1@dont-email.me> <10tc9il$9ghh$1@dont-email.me> <10tcd87$af3k$1@dont-email.me> <10tes4m$11da1$1@dont-email.me> <10tg5fe$1dgis$2@dont-email.me> <10thebs$1r8jr$1@dont-email.me> <10thkat$1t10f$2@dont-email.me> <10tk2pe$2mr0m$1@dont-email.me> <10tl1l9$306rb$2@dont-email.me> <10tl4n0$31lpp$1@dont-email.me> <10tmrbj$3grcc$2@dont-email.me> <10tn8dr$3khtu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding 8bit
Injection-Date Sun, 10 May 2026 07:10:28 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info dont-email.me; logging-data="233962"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MGJkdNUpUntP5ej2dpJIk"; posting-host="3abc71ed211e256ea9d091b947d681f3"
User-Agent Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock sha1:dqg8QQP67dsQu6rdxiXALIbp9QM= sha256:PtroVDcV0STLxr2acTPIvXUa88nRHAJOlqk6Q+LCRmU= sha1:h2ZkD/XVSU9JkNovAg1yZBI5gE0=
In-Reply-To <10tn8dr$3khtu$1@dont-email.me>
Xref csiph.com comp.theory:141174 sci.logic:345875 comp.ai.philosophy:34498 sci.math:645062 sci.math.symbolic:8829

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Followups directed to: sci.logic

Show key headers only | View raw

On 09/05/2026 15:13, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2026 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 08/05/2026 19:58, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2026 11:06 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/26 12:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 07/05/2026 12:00, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/26 12:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/05/2026 22:40, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/26 12:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 05/05/2026 12:28, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/26 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/05/2026 10:53, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/3/26 11:15 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/05/2026 12:09, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/3/26 12:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/05/2026 23:39, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/26 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/26 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2026 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/04/2026 15:58, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unknown truths are not elements of the body of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge is a semantic tautology. Did you think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that things that are unknown are known?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but that measn that for some sentences X True(X) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unknown and there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no method to find out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about philosophers but mathematicians 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and logicians don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find it interesting if all you can say that all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge is knowable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and everything else is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson, seemed to endlessly hedge on whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not the truth value of the Goldbach conjecture was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known. He seemed to think that there are alternative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical frameworks that make the question of whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not its truth value is known an ambiguous question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I needed to refer to unknown truth values specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because all "undecidability" when construed correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falls into one of two categories.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Semantic incoherence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Unknown truth values.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Undecidability can not come from Semantic Incoherence, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the definition of Undecidability ia based on there 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a coherent answer, just not one that can be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined by a computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> richard richard richard, that is in-correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the undecidable problem turing described (as well as the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic halting problem) involves a situations that have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _no_ coherent answer, not just one that can be known by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not computed ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing proved that there are universal Turing machines. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An universalTuring machine halts with some inputs and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't halt with any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. Every Turing machine that can be given the same 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universal Turing machine either fails to accept some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input with which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that universal Turing machine halts or fails to reject 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some input with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which that universal Turing macnie does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dunno what ur saying here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a way to find out if you can read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> i can't read if u can't explain
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I can't explain the art of reading Common Language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turing hypothesized a diagonal computation that tries to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put the Nth digit from the Nth circle-free machine as the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nth digit on this diagonal across all circle-free machine...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is possible because there nither the machines nor 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> digit positions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are more numerous than natural numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, but then he argues it's impossible to compute the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> diagonal because of the paradox that ensues when naively 
>>>>>>>>>>>> running the classifier on the diagonal itself
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> It is impossible to have a Turing machine that computes a 
>>>>>>>>>>> number that
>>>>>>>>>>> no Turing machine can compute. But you can compute it if you 
>>>>>>>>>>> can use
>>>>>>>>>>> all (infinitely many) Turing machines.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no you can't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hard to test as I han't infinite many Turing machines. But it is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> u don't need to test it, you can't define a total dovetailing 
>>>>>>>> machine to compute turing's diagonal,
>>>>>>> You should not say anything about the diagonal before you have 
>>>>>>> defined
>>>>>>> it. Any use of the word before the definition is nonsense,.
>>>>>
>>>>>> the H machine defined on p247 from his paper /on computable numbers/
>>>>> A machine is not a "diagonal".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the machine supposes to compute the "turing's diagonal" across 
>>>> circle- free sequences, otherwise labeled as β' in the paper, 
>>>> defined at the bottom of p246
>>>
>>> Anything that any machine can possibly compute can
>>> be computed by applying a finite set of finite string
>>> transformation rules to a finite set of finite strings.
>>>
>>> Everything else is simply out-of-scope for computation
>>> like making a silk purse from a sow's ear.
>>
>> That "everything else" includes many thigns that would be useful to
>> know. In particular, whether some useful function can be computed is
>> in that "everything else".
> 
> Like the truth value of: "This sentence is not true"
> that has no truth value.

I don't think knowing the truth value of that would be useful. At least
not for any important purpose.

> All self-reference "paradox" is equivalent to the
> Liar Paradox and can be resolved by disallowing it
> like ZFC disallowed Russell's "Paradox".

Whether something is a self-reference depends on interpretation. In an
uninterpreted formal language there are no references and therefore no
self-references, which is the simplest way to avoid paradoxes by self-
reference.

Even without any self-reference a theory can be inconsistent. Russell's
paradox is simply an inconsistency.

-- 
Mikko

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-15 09:54 +0300
  Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-15 06:57 -0500
    Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-16 11:26 +0300
      Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 07:36 -0500
        Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 10:10 -0700
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 12:27 -0500
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 12:36 -0500
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 10:47 -0700
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 10:57 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 11:18 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 11:26 -0700
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 13:24 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 11:45 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 11:59 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 14:47 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 17:04 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-16 19:41 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 00:49 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 09:04 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 07:52 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 09:58 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 08:14 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 11:53 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 17:24 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 20:43 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 19:13 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 21:25 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 19:32 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 21:42 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 21:28 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 11:54 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-17 11:12 -0400
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 08:19 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-18 12:13 -0400
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-19 09:15 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-19 10:07 -0700
        Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-17 09:45 +0300
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-17 09:29 -0500
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-18 12:15 +0300
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 07:59 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-19 11:54 +0300
  Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 07:58 -0500
    Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-19 11:59 +0300
      Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-19 09:42 -0700
      Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-19 12:21 -0500
        Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-19 13:58 -0400
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-02 13:39 -0700
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-03 10:53 +0300
              Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 11:58 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-08 10:13 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 12:35 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-08 11:40 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-08 14:01 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-05-10 13:06 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 14:12 -0600
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 21:14 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 15:17 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-09 11:10 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-09 11:30 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-09 07:13 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-10 10:10 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 10:27 -0700
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 12:38 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 14:06 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-11 10:24 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 06:44 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-05-12 10:05 +0300
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 08:32 -0500
                Re: Simplifying the Church / Turing thesis "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-05-10 21:15 -0700
        Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-20 11:49 +0300
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 08:31 -0500
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-21 09:30 +0300
              Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-21 08:22 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-22 10:03 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-22 02:45 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-23 09:35 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-23 08:32 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-24 09:08 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 10:01 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-25 11:18 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 07:19 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-26 11:17 +0300
                The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 08:37 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-26 20:09 -0400
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-27 12:04 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 09:38 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 10:51 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:22 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Catches Liars Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 09:51 +0300
                The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-24 11:24 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-25 11:20 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-25 07:25 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-26 11:09 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-26 08:22 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-04-26 20:14 -0400
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-27 12:22 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-27 09:47 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-28 10:55 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-04-28 07:24 -0500
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-29 09:57 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" <is> fully elaborated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-04-30 11:04 +0300
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-23 09:54 -0700
                Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-23 09:57 -0700
          Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 07:54 -0700
            Re: The notion of a "well founded justification tree" will be fully elaborated --- Correction Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-20 08:32 -0700

csiph-web