Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model

Newsgroups	sci.logic
Date	2023-07-26 03:58 -0700
References	(26 earlier) <deb39b74-ab4e-4095-890b-012f4125cff8n@googlegroups.com> <45fd56b8-fa24-4515-a301-cc8d744477c2n@googlegroups.com> <3962d9a8-4752-41cf-a8d5-ef9d8c25b00fn@googlegroups.com> <7e0f695b-5857-427d-a595-e086850d4c25n@googlegroups.com> <25059919-afa8-44d6-8288-75c2a899342cn@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID	<e6eae70c-b7e2-4345-bdde-4ecec33ec86dn@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model
From	Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

But what is more False than Falsum in Minimal Logic.
Ingebrigt Johansson suggests ~a/\~~a as Falsum.
But we cannot prove:

(a -> f) -> (f -> a)

So what is more False than Falsum. What 'a' would
does even satisfy (a->f) but not (f->a). Well thats easy.
We can find b/\~b as a more False than Falsum

in Minimal Logic, after all we have:

b/\~b -> f

Or when there is no constant 'f', we have:

b/\~b -> ~b/\~~b

Which is consequence of b -> ~~b. So do the b/\~b
consists of some False that are more False than Falsum
in Minimal Logic? What is b/\~b model theoretically

in Minimal Logic, when its not Falsum?

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

Thread

Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:40 -0500
  Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-20 17:13 -0700
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 19:33 -0500
      Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-20 19:54 -0700
        Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 22:34 -0500
          Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-20 21:53 -0700
            Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 08:47 -0500
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 07:46 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:03 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 08:38 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 11:13 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:18 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:25 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 10:07 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:42 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:49 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:59 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy (Gödel and Tarski) are abolished olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 13:37 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy (Gödel and Tarski) are abolished (typos) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:44 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 14:12 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 16:30 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:11 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:12 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 11:46 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:54 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:01 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 12:06 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 10:13 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:26 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:31 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:33 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 10:42 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 13:54 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 15:59 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:09 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 14:24 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 16:42 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 16:44 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 16:45 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 16:50 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 22:15 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 16:54 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 22:41 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-22 08:29 +0200
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-22 08:34 +0200
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 23:43 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:44 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:50 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 09:04 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 11:23 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 09:30 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 11:37 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 10:34 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 12:49 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 13:07 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 11:19 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 13:28 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 11:52 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:19 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 11:07 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 11:28 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 12:26 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 12:50 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 12:59 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-22 15:08 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 13:28 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 15:52 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 14:41 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 16:49 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-22 17:44 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 15:09 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 17:15 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 18:36 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 21:13 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 19:37 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 22:18 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 20:40 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 22:58 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 21:05 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 23:08 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 21:23 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 23:33 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 21:43 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 23:57 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 22:28 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 09:00 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 09:39 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-23 17:22 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 14:47 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 17:19 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 15:53 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 18:18 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 20:10 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 19:52 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 22:23 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 22:17 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:24 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 08:24 -0700
                True(L,x) only requires the Prolog Architecture of reaching Prolog facts through Prolog Rules olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:34 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 03:18 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 03:22 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:27 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:35 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 07:42 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:46 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 08:46 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:50 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 09:08 -0700
                True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:15 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 09:37 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:53 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 10:04 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:16 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:00 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:15 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:52 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:56 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 13:25 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 19:58 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 22:17 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 00:19 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 04:04 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 04:20 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 03:58 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 04:08 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-26 04:24 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-25 09:20 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 11:42 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 14:44 -0500
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-25 15:54 -0700
                Re: True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 12:52 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:05 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 12:43 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:48 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 14:02 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 13:36 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 15:20 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 14:45 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 17:37 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 16:51 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-24 14:03 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2023-07-22 23:37 -0400
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 15:26 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 17:54 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-24 01:13 +0200
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:28 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 16:34 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-23 19:26 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-23 21:44 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-22 08:11 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-22 17:14 +0200
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 09:07 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 07:59 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 10:26 -0500
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 11:04 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:39 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:42 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 10:28 -0700
        Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 04:09 -0700
          Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 04:11 -0700
            Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 04:16 -0700
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 04:20 -0700
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 09:02 -0500
            Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 06:04 -0700
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 06:16 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 06:17 -0700
                Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-21 06:47 -0700
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 08:37 -0500
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 20:31 -0500
  Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:18 -0700
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 17:21 -0700
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-20 19:36 -0500
  Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-07-24 11:09 +0300
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 08:12 -0500
    Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 06:59 -0700
      Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 09:05 -0500
        Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 08:32 -0700
          Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 10:38 -0500
            Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-07-24 08:50 -0700
              True(L,x) can be defined by the Prolog inference model olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 11:09 -0500
              Re: Material implication sustains the non-sequitur fallacy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-07-24 20:57 +0200

csiph-web