Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #210067 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-09-04 11:41 -0400 |
| Last post | 2019-09-10 04:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 632 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-04 11:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-04 13:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-05 11:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-05 11:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-05 14:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-05 12:12 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-06 11:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-06 19:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-07 08:36 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-07 14:01 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-07 13:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-07 19:43 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2019-09-08 02:59 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) jvr <jrennenkampff@googlemail.com> - 2019-09-08 05:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-08 08:58 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) jvr <jrennenkampff@googlemail.com> - 2019-09-09 11:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 12:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-08 13:46 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-09 14:24 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-09 12:26 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-09 20:37 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 03:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 11:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 12:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 11:55 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 13:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 17:33 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 06:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-11 12:07 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 11:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-11 20:05 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-12 05:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-13 09:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-13 14:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-14 15:29 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-15 05:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-16 09:55 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-16 07:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-16 17:08 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-16 11:49 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-16 10:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-17 00:37 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-17 00:43 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 08:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 08:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-19 01:52 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 05:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 01:34 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-20 08:09 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-20 14:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 13:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 13:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-23 21:14 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:49 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 13:01 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 15:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 23:32 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 13:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-22 17:53 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-23 21:46 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 05:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 02:15 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-20 07:59 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 23:51 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-19 14:12 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 12:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-20 14:10 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-21 12:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-21 19:28 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-23 12:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-23 22:28 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 07:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-24 17:10 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-25 09:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-25 18:53 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-25 11:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 13:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 14:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-25 16:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 13:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-27 13:52 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:38 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-27 23:17 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 12:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-28 13:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 05:59 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 08:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 10:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 12:12 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 14:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 09:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 12:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-29 13:55 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 11:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 12:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:46 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 13:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 14:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-29 14:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 09:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 10:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 07:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 11:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 13:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 02:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 10:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 14:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-02 23:11 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 15:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 14:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 16:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 14:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 15:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 03:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-06 16:47 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 14:07 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 06:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 06:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 06:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 09:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 09:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 11:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-07 11:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 14:26 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 08:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 13:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 02:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-09 10:42 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 03:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 06:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 07:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-10 07:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-10 17:00 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-10-10 20:27 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-10 11:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 08:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-10 13:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-10 11:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-10 14:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:13 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 10:01 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 11:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 02:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 09:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 10:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 11:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 02:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-13 10:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 02:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 08:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 03:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 08:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 03:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 07:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 08:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 09:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 06:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 08:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 09:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 10:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 10:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 10:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 10:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 06:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 08:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 09:12 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-17 17:36 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 12:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 12:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 16:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 12:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 14:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 08:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 09:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 11:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 14:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 02:25 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 06:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 04:54 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 07:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-10 16:39 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-09 15:39 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 01:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 05:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) j4n bur53 <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2019-10-10 15:52 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 07:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-10 16:30 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 08:54 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-10 18:07 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-11 16:15 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 05:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:06 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-10 12:36 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 04:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-11 14:22 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 11:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 11:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 03:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 06:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 09:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-30 17:10 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 15:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 21:42 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-01 23:27 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 08:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-02 13:21 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 21:07 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-03 11:19 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 23:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-05 14:31 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 09:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 09:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-06 14:17 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 07:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-06 19:30 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 11:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-06 19:39 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 11:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-06 20:12 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 12:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-06 19:19 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-06 20:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-07 14:50 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-07 12:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-07 17:28 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-08 00:02 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-07 20:29 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 22:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-08 13:13 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-08 10:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 18:51 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-10 22:13 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-10 19:49 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-11 11:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-11 13:31 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-11 15:59 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 19:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 19:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 11:08 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 10:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 11:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 14:34 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 11:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 15:34 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 13:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 17:45 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 15:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-12 22:27 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 21:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 21:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-13 15:44 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-13 15:59 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 08:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 17:09 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 09:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 17:25 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 09:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2019-10-14 09:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 12:30 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 09:34 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 12:48 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 09:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 10:13 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 10:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 13:40 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 11:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 11:52 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 17:14 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 16:03 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 19:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 17:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-14 20:57 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 21:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 04:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 11:38 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 12:39 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 12:53 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 19:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-15 22:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 22:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-16 14:40 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-10-16 17:46 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-16 13:28 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-10-16 18:54 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 11:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-16 17:45 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 16:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-16 21:14 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 18:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-17 13:15 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-17 15:43 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-17 16:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-17 21:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-18 14:03 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 17:57 -0700
More help, please. Ping Mike Terry, George Greene, Rupert. TIA Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-18 22:31 -0400
Re: More help, please. Ping Mike Terry, George Greene, Rupert. TIA Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 20:26 -0700
Re: More help, please. Ping Mike Terry, George Greene, Rupert. TIA Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-18 21:01 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-16 19:41 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-21 22:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-22 14:20 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 07:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-22 16:07 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 07:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-22 16:11 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 09:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-22 18:10 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 10:32 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 10:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-22 13:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 20:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 21:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-22 21:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 08:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-23 18:00 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 08:59 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 12:45 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 15:34 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 14:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-23 22:23 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 14:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-24 17:18 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 10:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 10:38 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 18:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 18:46 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 16:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 20:54 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 18:46 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 20:21 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 22:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-24 13:42 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 12:46 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-24 20:49 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 13:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 16:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-24 20:51 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 21:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-24 23:01 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-25 07:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-25 11:50 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-25 11:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-25 18:06 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-25 18:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-26 09:07 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 12:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-26 20:59 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 13:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 13:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-26 17:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 15:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 15:21 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-26 20:39 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-26 19:17 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-27 02:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 09:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 11:52 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 12:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-27 17:46 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 16:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-28 13:47 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 11:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-28 15:17 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 13:36 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 15:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-28 19:36 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 18:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-28 22:45 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-28 20:08 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-29 13:51 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-29 20:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-29 20:36 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-30 12:36 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 10:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-30 14:11 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 12:05 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 15:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 15:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-30 23:00 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-30 16:07 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-31 08:36 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-31 07:39 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-01 14:15 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-31 07:38 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-31 14:07 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-31 17:12 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-31 22:04 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-31 20:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-01 11:08 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 23:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 23:40 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 13:24 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 13:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 13:24 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 09:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 14:15 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 13:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 13:23 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-02 22:21 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 18:44 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 16:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 20:58 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 21:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 11:42 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 23:25 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 23:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 10:25 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 10:42 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 10:51 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 11:38 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 12:11 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 14:48 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 12:32 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-04 21:05 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 13:49 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-04 23:44 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 16:55 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 14:19 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-04 23:54 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 16:36 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 20:48 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 20:49 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 21:35 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 07:53 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-05 14:35 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 20:45 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 23:41 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-06 12:40 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 11:28 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 13:22 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-06 20:36 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 18:09 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 19:53 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-07 10:34 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-07 23:59 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 00:26 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 01:00 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 09:59 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 13:30 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 12:17 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 18:09 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 15:21 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 18:41 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 16:00 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 21:39 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 19:27 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-09 00:05 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 22:10 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 09:47 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-10 15:24 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-09 14:56 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 12:08 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-09 16:10 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 23:02 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 01:44 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-10 08:49 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 07:28 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 10:24 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 11:54 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-10 15:32 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 09:51 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 09:53 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 10:07 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 10:15 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-10 20:11 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-11-11 07:48 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-11-11 17:05 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-11-11 09:21 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-11-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-11 10:10 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-11-09 21:03 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 12:09 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-08 19:20 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-08 16:44 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-11-07 02:00 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 10:35 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 07:44 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 16:18 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-06 10:51 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-05 13:18 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 22:30 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-06 11:22 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-05 10:56 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 10:30 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 07:43 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 15:49 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 15:49 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 19:54 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 21:00 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-05 11:38 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 10:27 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 07:43 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-06 15:48 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 12:55 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-02 22:38 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 20:58 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 21:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-11-04 10:24 -0500
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 07:41 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-01 11:42 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-01 11:58 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-01 12:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 00:07 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 15:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-02 23:19 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 16:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-02 23:33 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 16:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-02 21:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-03 15:01 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-03 10:04 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-11-04 23:41 +0000
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-11-04 15:46 -0800
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-30 14:06 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-29 00:00 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 16:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-23 18:23 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 10:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-23 19:21 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-23 11:33 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-23 11:36 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 23:57 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 07:27 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-16 14:40 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-16 07:19 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 20:10 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 12:36 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 20:48 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:37 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 13:45 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 22:29 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-14 15:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-15 15:38 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 07:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-15 16:54 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 09:28 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-15 18:27 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-15 11:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-15 21:45 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-14 22:26 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-20 20:09 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 19:15 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 19:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-20 20:44 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-21 13:08 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) bassam karzeddin <sophyan2003@gmail.com> - 2019-10-21 01:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-11 21:08 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-12 00:10 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 19:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-11 19:48 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-10-13 00:44 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> - 2019-10-12 19:02 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-10-08 15:03 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:18 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:20 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 03:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 04:11 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-01 20:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 02:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-02 13:21 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-02 13:47 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-02 22:55 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-02 23:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-04 14:14 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-04 23:14 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-05 14:22 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-06 14:52 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@python.invalid> - 2019-10-07 01:39 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-06 22:51 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 07:41 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-10-07 13:48 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-10-07 11:16 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-24 14:54 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 14:13 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 08:31 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:41 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 13:35 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-20 12:23 +0200
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-20 14:26 +0100
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-20 07:56 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 10:53 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 13:43 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 14:10 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 05:04 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 09:29 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 12:41 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 12:55 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-10 17:00 -0400
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 05:50 -0700
Re: Finally, a mainstream academic (Doron Zeilberger) realises pi is NOT a number. (PLO) Ganzhinterseher <claus.vonnesser@gmail.com> - 2019-09-10 04:22 -0700
Page 15 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 32 Next page →
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-12 22:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <b91d853a-21fb-9d75-99a7-956368a9cfe8@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211662 |
On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > On Saturday, 12 October 2019 15:45:40 UTC-6, > Jim Burns wrote: >> On 10/12/2019 4:19 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 13:34:52 UTC-6, >>> Jim Burns wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2019 2:53 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 12:34:36 UTC-6, >>>>> Jim Burns wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/2019 1:40 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 09:08:20 UTC-6, >>>>>>> Jim Burns wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/11/2019 10:47 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, 11 October 2019 20:27:52 UTC-6, >>>>>>>>> Khong Dong wrote: >>>>>>>>>> That "nK(2 < 2)" refers to a meta mathematical, >>>>>>>>>> language structure theoretical set notion: _not_ >>>>>>>>>> provability of ~(2 < 2) in Shoenfield's Q or PA. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would seem, then, that nK(cGC) does _not_ refer >>>>>>>> to provability of cGC in Q or PA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly. After 9+ long years or so you've finally >>>>>>> understood undecide(cGC), nK(cGC) meta theorems >>>>>>> do _not_ refer to whether or not (PA |- cGC)! >>>>>>> Better late than never. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What use does your nK() notation have outside your >>>>>>>> private mathematical-relativity pocket universe? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's see. With the meta theorem undecide(cGC) >>>>>>> [hence nK(cGC)] I can prove: >>>>>>> 1. If the Goldbach conjecture is true, it’s impossible >>>>>>> to prove. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have been making the claim nK(2 < 2). >>>>>> >>>>>> Is ~(2 < 2) true in models of Q? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it impossible to prove ~(2 < 2) in Q? >>>>>> >>>>>> It would, of course, be even better if you could prove >>>>>> your answers to those questions, but the answers >>>>>> themselves would be very helpful. >>>>> >>>>> You have endless list of questions. How about answering >>>>> my outstanding questions, Jim? >>>> >>>> Well, you know how it is. You (NN) say one thing about >>>> cGC and another thing about ~(2 < 2). Of course, if I >>>> am to understand you, I need to know why they're different. >>> >>> With your ignorance, thinking for example the universe >>> of a structure is the structure itself you don't need to >>> know why on foundation matters. >> >> I'd ask where you got the idea that I think that a >> structure for a model is only its universe -- but I can >> see how you hate to answer questions. > > Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: > "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, > then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". My apology, then, for not being clear enough. I was engaging in metonymy. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metonymy 1. The use of a single characteristic or part of an object, concept or phenomenon to identify the entire object, concept, phenomenon or a related object. By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to be understood to be referring to the whole model. This is metonymy. Some other examples of metonymy: _Crown_ for _the royal person_ _The Oval Office_ for _the President of the United States_ _Suits_ for _business people_ _Dish_ for _the food prepared and served in a dish_ "The pen is mightier than the sword" uses metonymy twice. _Pen_ for _writing_ _Sword_ for _military power_ > U isn't and can't be a structure even if there's no > non-logical function or relation involved. > Do you get that now, ignoramus Jim Burns? Let us consider a first order theory T and all of the structures which obey the axioms of T. Suppose that (initially) _all that we know_ about a structure M is that it is one of T's models. Then, we know that each of the axioms of T are true of M. Suppose that we know P and P -> Q to be axioms of T. Then we know P and P -> Q to be true of M -- even though we don't know _which_ model M is, only that it _is_ a model. And, because we know P and P -> Q are true, we know Q is true, even if Q is not an axiom of T. We can see this in the truth table for '->'. If we eliminate every row in which P is false or P->Q is false, Q is true in the only row left. P Q P->Q P Q P->Q t t t t t t f t t = - - t f f - - = f f t = - - Now we _know_ that all of the axioms of T and also Q are true of M. Remember, we haven't been _told_ anything more about M than that it is a model of T. ---- Consider a finite sequence of formulas in L(T), S[1], S[2], ... , S[k] such that, for all S[j], EITHER (i) S[j] is an axiom, OR (ii) there are formulas S[j'] and S[j"] in the formula-sequence _before_ S[j], AND, S[j'] is P, S[j"] is P->Q, and S[j] is Q, for some formulas P and Q. For any S[j] in the sequence, _we know_ S[j]. Suppose that that's not true, that there is some S[i] which we _do not_ know. Then there is some _first_ unknown formula S[h]. But _we know_ S[h]. EITHER (i) S[h] is an axiom -- and so we know S[h] OR (ii) there are formulas S[h'] and S[h"] in the formula-sequence _before_ S[h], AND, S[h'] is P, S[h"] is P->Q, and S[h] is Q, for some formulas P and Q. Remember that S[h] is the _first unknown_ formula, and that S[h'] and S[h"] come _before_ S[h]. Therefore, we _must know_ S[h'] and S[h"]. But we saw above that, if we know S[h'] ( P ) and we know S[h"] ( P->Q ), then we know S[h] ( Q ). Contradiction. So, there is no first unknown formula. So, there is no unknown formula. So, for any S[j] in the sequence, _we know_ S[j]. And, _we know_ S[k],if we know that there is a finite sequence of formulas in L(T), S[1], S[2], ... , S[k] such that, for all S[j], EITHER (i) S[j] is an axiom, OR (ii) there are formulas S[j'] and S[j"] in the formula-sequence _before_ S[j], AND, S[j'] is P, S[j"] is P->Q, and S[j] is Q, for some formulas P and Q. If we know that there is such a sequence, then we say that we have _proved_ S[k]. As you can see, if we have proved S[k], then we _know_ S[k]. All along in this argument, there has been this ambiguity in which model of T we are referring to as M. We _still_ have not resolved that ambiguity. We just don't know which model is M. But, you see that the ambiguity in M does not change the fact that we know S[k]. All along, we have restricted ourselves to formulas that are true of _all_ models of T, so, whichever model M is, S[k] is true of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-12 21:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be1a532c-6889-44d9-ab98-6a94d0f44b8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211666 |
On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > On Saturday, 12 October 2019 15:45:40 UTC-6, > > Jim Burns wrote: > >> On 10/12/2019 4:19 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 13:34:52 UTC-6, > >>> Jim Burns wrote: > >>>> On 10/12/2019 2:53 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 12:34:36 UTC-6, > >>>>> Jim Burns wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/12/2019 1:40 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 09:08:20 UTC-6, > >>>>>>> Jim Burns wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 10/11/2019 10:47 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, 11 October 2019 20:27:52 UTC-6, > >>>>>>>>> Khong Dong wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> That "nK(2 < 2)" refers to a meta mathematical, > >>>>>>>>>> language structure theoretical set notion: _not_ > >>>>>>>>>> provability of ~(2 < 2) in Shoenfield's Q or PA. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It would seem, then, that nK(cGC) does _not_ refer > >>>>>>>> to provability of cGC in Q or PA. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Exactly. After 9+ long years or so you've finally > >>>>>>> understood undecide(cGC), nK(cGC) meta theorems > >>>>>>> do _not_ refer to whether or not (PA |- cGC)! > >>>>>>> Better late than never. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What use does your nK() notation have outside your > >>>>>>>> private mathematical-relativity pocket universe? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let's see. With the meta theorem undecide(cGC) > >>>>>>> [hence nK(cGC)] I can prove: > >>>>>>> 1. If the Goldbach conjecture is true, it’s impossible > >>>>>>> to prove. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have been making the claim nK(2 < 2). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is ~(2 < 2) true in models of Q? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is it impossible to prove ~(2 < 2) in Q? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It would, of course, be even better if you could prove > >>>>>> your answers to those questions, but the answers > >>>>>> themselves would be very helpful. > >>>>> > >>>>> You have endless list of questions. How about answering > >>>>> my outstanding questions, Jim? > >>>> > >>>> Well, you know how it is. You (NN) say one thing about > >>>> cGC and another thing about ~(2 < 2). Of course, if I > >>>> am to understand you, I need to know why they're different. > >>> > >>> With your ignorance, thinking for example the universe > >>> of a structure is the structure itself you don't need to > >>> know why on foundation matters. > >> > >> I'd ask where you got the idea that I think that a > >> structure for a model is only its universe -- but I can > >> see how you hate to answer questions. > > > > Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: > > "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, > > then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > > My apology, then, for not being clear enough. > I was engaging in metonymy. > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metonymy > 1. The use of a single characteristic or part of an object, > concept or phenomenon to identify the entire object, concept, > phenomenon or a related object. > > By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to > be understood to be referring to the whole model. > This is metonymy. Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all these non-isomorphic models! So no: let's stop here until you realize your argument is invalid from inception.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-12 21:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9985c982-86b0-4c3f-b774-55db433b1d9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211667 |
On Saturday, 12 October 2019 22:20:32 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote: > On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > > On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > > On Saturday, 12 October 2019 15:45:40 UTC-6, > > > Jim Burns wrote: > > >> On 10/12/2019 4:19 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > >>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 13:34:52 UTC-6, > > >>> Jim Burns wrote: > > >>>> On 10/12/2019 2:53 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > >>>>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 12:34:36 UTC-6, > > >>>>> Jim Burns wrote: > > >>>>>> On 10/12/2019 1:40 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 09:08:20 UTC-6, > > >>>>>>> Jim Burns wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On 10/11/2019 10:47 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, 11 October 2019 20:27:52 UTC-6, > > >>>>>>>>> Khong Dong wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>>> That "nK(2 < 2)" refers to a meta mathematical, > > >>>>>>>>>> language structure theoretical set notion: _not_ > > >>>>>>>>>> provability of ~(2 < 2) in Shoenfield's Q or PA. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It would seem, then, that nK(cGC) does _not_ refer > > >>>>>>>> to provability of cGC in Q or PA. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Exactly. After 9+ long years or so you've finally > > >>>>>>> understood undecide(cGC), nK(cGC) meta theorems > > >>>>>>> do _not_ refer to whether or not (PA |- cGC)! > > >>>>>>> Better late than never. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> What use does your nK() notation have outside your > > >>>>>>>> private mathematical-relativity pocket universe? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Let's see. With the meta theorem undecide(cGC) > > >>>>>>> [hence nK(cGC)] I can prove: > > >>>>>>> 1. If the Goldbach conjecture is true, it’s impossible > > >>>>>>> to prove. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You have been making the claim nK(2 < 2). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Is ~(2 < 2) true in models of Q? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Is it impossible to prove ~(2 < 2) in Q? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> It would, of course, be even better if you could prove > > >>>>>> your answers to those questions, but the answers > > >>>>>> themselves would be very helpful. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> You have endless list of questions. How about answering > > >>>>> my outstanding questions, Jim? > > >>>> > > >>>> Well, you know how it is. You (NN) say one thing about > > >>>> cGC and another thing about ~(2 < 2). Of course, if I > > >>>> am to understand you, I need to know why they're different. > > >>> > > >>> With your ignorance, thinking for example the universe > > >>> of a structure is the structure itself you don't need to > > >>> know why on foundation matters. > > >> > > >> I'd ask where you got the idea that I think that a > > >> structure for a model is only its universe -- but I can > > >> see how you hate to answer questions. > > > > > > Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: > > > "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, > > > then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > > > > My apology, then, for not being clear enough. > > I was engaging in metonymy. > > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metonymy > > 1. The use of a single characteristic or part of an object, > > concept or phenomenon to identify the entire object, concept, > > phenomenon or a related object. > > > > By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to > > be understood to be referring to the whole model. > > This is metonymy. > > Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be *uncountably many* > models (having the same universe U) but are not isomorphic, hence U can't > represent all these non-isomorphic models! And on top of that your T might be consistent but could have ZERO model, even though it might have some LSTS (Language Structure Theorectical Sets)! > > So no: let's stop here until you realize your argument is invalid from inception. So your argument has two insurmountable problems. No can do, Jim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-13 15:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <de439183-4952-d174-445a-5e71fc780c39@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211667 |
On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, > Jim Burns wrote: >> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: >>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, >>> then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". >> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to >> be understood to be referring to the whole model. >> This is metonymy. > > Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be > *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) > but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all > these non-isomorphic models! My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with statements true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we progress step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference rules of first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all models of Q _to_ statements true of all models of Q. You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity in which model of Q it is we are referring to. But the proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . Change which model of Q you mean however you like. ~(2 < 2) will also be true of the new one. > So no: let's stop here until you realize your argument > is invalid from inception. I think that your life would be greatly enriched, Nam, by a correct appreciation of what "valid" means in this context. My point _is_ that my argument is _valid_ . And it is _because it is valid_ that the ambiguity that you point to does not matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-13 15:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <b0e90857-f746-1c60-0a61-4e61559accaf@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211694 |
On 10/13/2019 3:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: >> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, >> Jim Burns wrote: >>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: >>>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, >>>> then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > >>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to >>> be understood to be referring to the whole model. >>> This is metonymy. >> >> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be >> *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) >> but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all >> these non-isomorphic models! > > My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. > By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with > statements true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we > progress step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference > rules of first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all > models of Q _to_ statements true of all models of Q. > > You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity > in which model of Q it is we are referring to. But the > proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . > Change which model of Q you mean however you like. > ~(2 < 2) will also be true of the new one. > >> So no: let's stop here until you realize your argument >> is invalid from inception. > > I think that your life would be greatly enriched, Nam, > by a correct appreciation of what "valid" means in this > context. > > My point _is_ that my argument is _valid_ . And it is > _because it is valid_ that the ambiguity that you point to > does not matter. An analogy: Consider the argument | All men are mortal. | Socrates is a man. | Therefore, Socrates is mortal. There is room for authentic questioning of _which_ man was the philosopher living several thousand years ago. Nonetheless, whichever man it is, _that_ man was mortal. Questioning "Which man was Socrates" does not affect the conclusion "The man that was Socrates was mortal". Questioning "Which model is the model NN means" does not affect the conclusion "In that model, ~(2 < 2)".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <019a9305-633f-492e-a15a-4ef72beab65f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211694 |
On Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:45:00 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > > On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, > > Jim Burns wrote: > >> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > >>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: > >>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, > >>> then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > > >> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to > >> be understood to be referring to the whole model. > >> This is metonymy. > > > > Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be > > *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) > > but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all > > these non-isomorphic models! > > My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. > By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with > statements true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we > progress step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference > rules of first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all > models of Q _to_ statements true of all models of Q. But you don't even have any model of Q because it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. > > You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity > in which model of Q it is we are referring to. Among other things, your proof is invalid because you don't even have any model of Q since it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. > But the > proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . > Change which model of Q you mean however you like. > ~(2 < 2) will also be true of the new one. But you don't even have any relevant model to begin with, for your "Change which model of Q " to make sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 17:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qo26ji$37q$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #211708 |
On 14/10/2019 16:37, Khong Dong wrote: > On Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:45:00 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: >> On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: >>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >> >>>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: "If your U is one of those >>>>> structures, then, for that U, then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". >> >>>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to be >>>> understood to be referring to the whole model. This is >>>> metonymy. >>> >>> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be *uncountably >>> many* models (having the same universe U) but are not isomorphic, >>> hence U can't represent all these non-isomorphic models! >> >> My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. By >> _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with statements >> true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we progress >> step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference rules of >> first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all models of Q _to_ >> statements true of all models of Q. > > But you don't even have any model of Q because it's impossible to > know the truth value of cGC. > >> >> You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity in which >> model of Q it is we are referring to. > > Among other things, your proof is invalid because you don't even have > any model of Q since it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. The proof is a wholly syntactic thing which makes no reference (and needs no reference) to models. > >> But the proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . >> Change which model of Q you mean however you like. ~(2 < 2) will >> also be true of the new one. > > But you don't even have any relevant model to begin with, for your > "Change which model of Q " to make sense. Q has numerous models. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e24d6d1-6a88-424c-ab7a-1e46f935dc6d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211711 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:09:24 UTC-6, Fred wrote: > On 14/10/2019 16:37, Khong Dong wrote: > > On Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:45:00 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > >> On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > >>>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > >> > >>>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: "If your U is one of those > >>>>> structures, then, for that U, then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > >> > >>>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to be > >>>> understood to be referring to the whole model. This is > >>>> metonymy. > >>> > >>> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be *uncountably > >>> many* models (having the same universe U) but are not isomorphic, > >>> hence U can't represent all these non-isomorphic models! > >> > >> My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. By > >> _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with statements > >> true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we progress > >> step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference rules of > >> first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all models of Q _to_ > >> statements true of all models of Q. > > > > But you don't even have any model of Q because it's impossible to > > know the truth value of cGC. > > > >> > >> You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity in which > >> model of Q it is we are referring to. > > > > Among other things, your proof is invalid because you don't even have > > any model of Q since it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. > > The proof is a wholly syntactic thing which makes no reference (and > needs no reference) to models. Listen troll, read JB's "We start with statements true of all models of Q". > >> But the proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . > >> Change which model of Q you mean however you like. ~(2 < 2) will > >> also be true of the new one. > > > > But you don't even have any relevant model to begin with, for your > > "Change which model of Q " to make sense. > > Q has numerous models. In your wild dream. Unless of course inform sci.logic which one M such that (M |= cGC).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 17:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qo27hk$vvh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #211713 |
On 14/10/2019 17:18, Khong Dong wrote: > On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:09:24 UTC-6, Fred wrote: >> On 14/10/2019 16:37, Khong Dong wrote: >>> On Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:45:00 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: "If your U is one of those >>>>>>> structures, then, for that U, then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". >>>> >>>>>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to be >>>>>> understood to be referring to the whole model. This is >>>>>> metonymy. >>>>> >>>>> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be *uncountably >>>>> many* models (having the same universe U) but are not isomorphic, >>>>> hence U can't represent all these non-isomorphic models! >>>> >>>> My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. By >>>> _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with statements >>>> true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we progress >>>> step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference rules of >>>> first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all models of Q _to_ >>>> statements true of all models of Q. >>> >>> But you don't even have any model of Q because it's impossible to >>> know the truth value of cGC. >>> >>>> >>>> You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity in which >>>> model of Q it is we are referring to. >>> >>> Among other things, your proof is invalid because you don't even have >>> any model of Q since it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. >> >> The proof is a wholly syntactic thing which makes no reference (and >> needs no reference) to models. > > Listen troll, read JB's "We start with statements true of all models of Q". The models of Q are, by definition, the models of Q's axioms. Proofs proceed from axioms. They do that even if models are never mentioned. (They also proceed from logical axioms using logical rules, but they too are valid in all models of Q (a fortiori, since they are valid in all models of anything).) Try not to be so aggressive. That I choose to reply to your posts does not make me a troll. > >>>> But the proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . >>>> Change which model of Q you mean however you like. ~(2 < 2) will >>>> also be true of the new one. >>> >>> But you don't even have any relevant model to begin with, for your >>> "Change which model of Q " to make sense. >> >> Q has numerous models. > > In your wild dream. Unless of course inform sci.logic which one M such that > (M |= cGC). >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 09:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <890c3815-6b74-4270-8b58-210f598634df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211714 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:25:26 UTC-6, Fred wrote: > On 14/10/2019 17:18, Khong Dong wrote: > > On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:09:24 UTC-6, Fred wrote: > >> On 14/10/2019 16:37, Khong Dong wrote: > >>> On Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:45:00 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > >>>> On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > >>>>>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: "If your U is one of those > >>>>>>> structures, then, for that U, then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > >>>> > >>>>>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to be > >>>>>> understood to be referring to the whole model. This is > >>>>>> metonymy. > >>>>> > >>>>> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be *uncountably > >>>>> many* models (having the same universe U) but are not isomorphic, > >>>>> hence U can't represent all these non-isomorphic models! > >>>> > >>>> My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. By > >>>> _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with statements > >>>> true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we progress > >>>> step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference rules of > >>>> first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all models of Q _to_ > >>>> statements true of all models of Q. > >>> > >>> But you don't even have any model of Q because it's impossible to > >>> know the truth value of cGC. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity in which > >>>> model of Q it is we are referring to. > >>> > >>> Among other things, your proof is invalid because you don't even have > >>> any model of Q since it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. > >> > >> The proof is a wholly syntactic thing which makes no reference (and > >> needs no reference) to models. > > > > Listen troll, read JB's "We start with statements true of all models of Q". > > The models of Q are, by definition, the models of Q's axioms. Lol. That's one the most hilarious utterances in sci.logic! According to you then the models of (Q + cGC) are, by definition, the models of (Q + cGC)'s axioms! So if you're asked to prove T has a model, you can just prove so by saying the "models of T are, by definition, the models of T's axioms"! Crank.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <afda6c8a-5701-4f96-94df-a01875448607@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211711 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 18:09:24 UTC+2, Fred wrote: > On 14/10/2019 16:37, Khong Dong wrote: > > Among other things, your proof is invalid because you don't even have > > any model of Q since it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. It's only your unjustified claim that it's *impossible* to find that out. > The proof is a wholly syntactic thing which makes no reference (and > needs no reference) to models. If you mean Goedel's proof, that makes no reference to models but is not purely syntactic either, and not even Geodel in person would have subscribed to calling it so: not only the provability predicate is not recursive, hence the entire proof, we also and crucially need to interpret G in order to get to conclusions. And crucially the statement must be true, hence model theory indeed is a joke if they think they can add ~G to the axioms and still get a correct theory. Anyway, what a pile of junk... Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 12:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <77e5e8d4-f63a-1b7c-e23a-4b57c79d292d@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211708 |
On 10/14/2019 11:37 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > On Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:45:00 UTC-6, > Jim Burns wrote: >> On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: >>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, >>> Jim Burns wrote: >>>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: >>>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: >>>>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, >>>>> for that U, then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". >> >>>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to >>>> be understood to be referring to the whole model. >>>> This is metonymy. >>> >>> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be >>> *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) >>> but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all >>> these non-isomorphic models! >> >> My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are >> using. By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We >> start with statements true of all models of Q (the >> axioms of Q) and we progress step-by-step (obeying the >> truth-preserving inference rules of first-order logic) >> _from_ statements true of all models of Q _to_ >> statements true of all models of Q. > > But you don't even have any model of Q because > it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. You have not shown that it is impossible to know the truth value of cGC. Your argument is nonsense. It depends fundamentally upon strategically "misunderstanding" what is being said. Whether your nK(cGC) even _claims_ that it is impossible to know the truth value of cGC is something that flutters back and forth with the breeze. You made a similar claim, nK(2<2) in Q, and it turns out, _after_ you've been shown a proof in Q, that nK(2<2) does not prevent a "syntactic proof" of ~(2<2). So, what does nK(cGC) say? Apparently, it says that a proof of cGC is impossible, but only as long as there is no proof of cGC. ---- And, anyway, we don't need to know the truth value of cGC in order for there to be a model of Q. This is an entirely invented-by-Nam requirement. A model of Q is a structure that obeys the axioms of Q. Period. Even if cGC were impossible to know in Q -- by which I mean, even if there were no proof in Q of cGC -- there would still be _models of Q_ . But there would be models of Q in which cGC wastrue and models of Q in which cGC was false. There would still be models. >> You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity >> in which model of Q it is we are referring to. > > Among other things, your proof is invalid because you > don't even have any model of Q since it's impossible > to know the truth value of cGC. See above. >> But the >> proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . >> Change which model of Q you mean however you like. >> ~(2 < 2) will also be true of the new one. > > But you don't even have any relevant model to begin with, > for your "Change which model of Q " to make sense. See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0754efa7-6bab-48ed-beb0-8240d37f5e5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211716 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:30:46 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/14/2019 11:37 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > > On Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:45:00 UTC-6, > > Jim Burns wrote: > >> On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, > >>> Jim Burns wrote: > >>>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > >>>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: > >>>>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, > >>>>> for that U, then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > >> > >>>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to > >>>> be understood to be referring to the whole model. > >>>> This is metonymy. > >>> > >>> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be > >>> *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) > >>> but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all > >>> these non-isomorphic models! > >> > >> My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are > >> using. By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We > >> start with statements true of all models of Q (the > >> axioms of Q) and we progress step-by-step (obeying the > >> truth-preserving inference rules of first-order logic) > >> _from_ statements true of all models of Q _to_ > >> statements true of all models of Q. > > > > But you don't even have any model of Q because > > it's impossible to know the truth value of cGC. > > You have not shown that it is impossible to know the > truth value of cGC. Your argument is nonsense. It depends > fundamentally upon strategically "misunderstanding" what is > being said. You're a recognized dishonest arguer, Jim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 12:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d3d9be4c-dd0a-0d85-a5e1-feb9718dcdcd@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211694 |
On 10/13/2019 3:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote:
>> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6,
>> Jim Burns wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote:
>>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea:
>>>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U,
>>>> then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)".
>
>>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to
>>> be understood to be referring to the whole model.
>>> This is metonymy.
>>
>> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be
>> *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U)
>> but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all
>> these non-isomorphic models!
>
> My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using.
> By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with
> statements true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we
> progress step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference
> rules of first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all
> models of Q _to_ statements true of all models of Q.
>
> You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity
> in which model of Q it is we are referring to. But the
> proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ .
> Change which model of Q you mean however you like.
> ~(2 < 2) will also be true of the new one.
I've worked out a very stripped-down example of the way that
conclusions of _valid_ proofs are true in all models
of a theory -- and that _what it means for it to be true_
depends upon which model the formal language is taken
to refer to.
----
Consider two non-isomorphic models, K and M, of Robinson
arithmetic which have the same universe/domain of discourse.
By "Robinson arithmetic", I refer to Shoenfield's N
on page 22 of _Mathematical Logic_ . I use four of
the nine axioms on that page
N1. ~(Sx=0)
N2. Sx=Sy -> x=y
N7. ~(x<0)
N8. x<Sy <-> x=y \/ x<y
For simplicity, I'm using slight variations on N2 and N8.
The variations N2' andN8' are equivalent to N2 and N8.
N2'. ~(x=y) -> ~(Sx=Sy)
N8'. ~(x=y) & ~(x<y) <-> ~(x<Sy)
I'm informally specifying part of the successor S() for
K and for M.
When I write
| K = { a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, ... },
I mean that there is no predecessor to 'a', S('a') = 'b',
S('b') = 'c', etc, and there are infinitely many other
elements following 'i'.
When I write
| M = { b, d, f, h, ... , g, c, a, e, i, ... },
I mean that there is no predecessor to 'b', S('b') = 'd',
S('d') = 'f', then comes infinitely successors to 'f',
then infinitely many predecessors to 'g', S('g') = 'c',
etc, then infinitely many successors.
I'm assigning elements of K's universe |K| so that
'a' = 0
'b' = S0
'c' = SS0
'd' = SSS0
etc.
I'm assigning elements of M's universe |M| so that
'b' = 0
'd' = S0
'f' = SS0
'h' = SSS0
etc.
There aren't any names like 'SSSS0' in L(S,0,+.*,<) for 'a',
its finite successors, and its finite predecessors. That's
not to say that they don't exist in |M|. They do, and
variables ranging over |M| range over these infinite
elements. But they won't be referred to by any finite string
of 'S' terminated by one '0' _in model M_ .
It's different in the model K. For every element in
|K|, there is one and only one finite string of 'S'
terminated by one '0'. K and M are not isomorphic.
----
In N1, ~(Sx=0)
for x, substitute 0. We write
| ~(S0 = 0)
in K we mean in M we mean
| ~(S'a'='a') | ~(S'b'='b')
| ~('b'='a') | ~('d'='b')
[1]
What '~(SS0=0)' means in K is true in K, and
what '~(SS0=0)' means in M is true in M, but
they mean different things in different models.
This is all as it should be, since ~(Sx=0) is an axiom
of Q and (I claim that) K and M are both models of Q.
But it's not hard to throw together a structure X in
which SS0=0 was true. X would not be a model in part
because SS0=0.
In N1, ~(Sx=0),
for x, substitute S0.
We write
| ~(SS0 = 0)
in K we mean in M we mean
| ~(SS'a'='a') | ~(SS'b'='b')
| ~(S'b'='a') | ~(S'd'='b')
| ~('c'='a') | ~('f'='b')
[2]
In N2', ~(x=y) -> ~(Sx=Sy)
for x, substitute S0, for y, substitute 0. We write
| ~(S0=0) -> ~(SS0=S0)
in K we mean in M we mean
| ~(S'a'='a') -> ~(SS'a'=S'a') | ~(S'b'='b') -> ~(SS'b'=S'b')
| ~('b'='a') -> ~(S'b'='b') | ~('d'='b') -> ~(S'd'='d')
| ~('b'='a') -> ~('c'='b') | ~('d'='b') -> ~('f'='d')
[3]
From [1] and [3] we conclude that we can write
| ~(SS0=S0)
in K we mean in M we mean
| ~(SS'a'=S'a') | ~(SS'a'=S'a')
| ~(S'b'='b') | ~(S'b'='b')
| ~('c'='b') | ~('c'='b')
[4]
In N7, ~(x<0)
for x, substitute SS0. We write
| ~(SS0<0)
in K we mean in M we mean
| ~(SS'a'<'a') | ~(SS'b'<'b')
| ~(S'b'<'a') | ~(S'd'<'b')
| ~('c'<'a') | ~('f'<'b')
[5]
In N8', ~(x=y) & ~(x<y) <-> ~(x<Sy),
for x subst SS0, for y subst 0. We write
| ~(SS0=0) & ~(SS0<0) <-> ~(SS0<S0)
in K we mean
| ~(SS'a'='a') & ~(SS'a'<'a') <-> ~(SS'a'<S'a')
| ~(S'b'='a') & ~(S'b'<'a') <-> ~(S'b'<'b')
| ~('c'='a') & ~('c'<'a') <-> ~('c'<'b')
in M we mean
| ~(SS'b'='b') & ~(SS'b'<'b') <-> ~(SS'b'<S'b')
| ~(S'd'='b') & ~(S'd'<'b') <-> ~(S'd'<'d')
| ~('f'='b') & ~('f'<'b') <-> ~('f'<'d')
[6]
From [2], [5], [6], we conclude that we can write
| ~(SS0<S0)
in K we mean in M we mean
| ~(SS'a'<S'a') | ~(SS'b'<S'b')
| ~(S'b'<'b') | ~(S'd'<'d')
| ~('c'<'b') | ~('f'<'d')
[7]
In N8', ~(x=y) & ~(x<y) <-> ~(x<Sy),
for x subst SS0, for y subst S0. We write
| ~(SS0=S0) & ~(SS0<S0) <-> ~(SS0<SS0)
in K we mean
| ~(SS'a'=S'a') & ~(SS'a'<S'a') <-> ~(SS'a'<SS'a')
| ~(S'b'='b') & ~(S'b'<'b') <-> ~(S'b'<S'b')
| ~('c'='b') & ~('c'<'b') <-> ~('c'<'c')
in M we mean
| ~(SS'b'=S'b') & ~(SS'b'<S'b') <-> ~(SS'b'<SS'b')
| ~(S'd'='d') & ~(S'd'<'d') <-> ~(S'd'<S'd')
| ~('f'='d') & ~('f'<'d') <-> ~('f'<'f')
[8]
From [4], [7], [8], we conclude that we can write
| ~(SS0<SS0)
in K we mean in M we mean
| ~(SS'a'<SS'a') | ~(SS'b'<SS'b')
| ~(S'b'<S'b') | ~(S'd'<S'd')
| ~('c'<'c') | ~('f'<'f')
[9]
We _write down_ both ~('c'<'c') and ~('f'<'f') as ~(SS0<SS0).
But, if we're referring to model K, ~(SS0<SS0) _means_
~('c'<'c'), and if we're referring to model M, ~(SS0<SS0)
_means_ ~('f'<'f').
And, in K, ~('c'<'c') is true and, in M, ~('f'<'f')
is true. It's these last two claims that are _the point_
of a _valid_ proof.
>> So no: let's stop here until you realize your argument
>> is invalid from inception.
>
> I think that your life would be greatly enriched, Nam,
> by a correct appreciation of what "valid" means in this
> context.
>
> My point _is_ that my argument is _valid_ . And it is
> _because it is valid_ that the ambiguity that you point to
> does not matter.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 09:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8053a17-152e-42f5-bcda-637b699aa716@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211722 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:48:33 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/13/2019 3:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote: > > On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > >> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, > >> Jim Burns wrote: > >>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > >>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: > >>>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, > >>>> then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > > > >>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to > >>> be understood to be referring to the whole model. > >>> This is metonymy. > >> > >> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be > >> *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) > >> but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all > >> these non-isomorphic models! > > > > My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. > > By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with > > statements true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we > > progress step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference > > rules of first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all > > models of Q _to_ statements true of all models of Q. > > > > You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity > > in which model of Q it is we are referring to. But the > > proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . > > Change which model of Q you mean however you like. > > ~(2 < 2) will also be true of the new one. > > I've worked out a very stripped-down example of the way that > conclusions of _valid_ proofs are true in all models > of a theory -- and that _what it means for it to be true_ > depends upon which model the formal language is taken > to refer to. > > ---- > Consider two non-isomorphic models, K and M, of Robinson > arithmetic which have the same universe/domain of discourse. I'm sorry but you have to improve your listening ability but if your "model" can't validate which way a specific sentence - e.g cGC - then your Robinson Arithmetic formal system Q does _not_ have a model for you to argue about. So, don't concentrate on how _you_ would define your "models": just inform sci.logic the truth value of cGC in _any_ of them. Then, we'll make a progress.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bc6048a-a0c1-42da-b612-82b83c94696a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211723 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:57:17 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote: > On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:48:33 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > > On 10/13/2019 3:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote: > > > On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > > >> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, > > >> Jim Burns wrote: > > >>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > > > >>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: > > >>>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, > > >>>> then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > > > > > >>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to > > >>> be understood to be referring to the whole model. > > >>> This is metonymy. > > >> > > >> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be > > >> *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) > > >> but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all > > >> these non-isomorphic models! > > > > > > My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. > > > By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with > > > statements true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we > > > progress step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference > > > rules of first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all > > > models of Q _to_ statements true of all models of Q. > > > > > > You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity > > > in which model of Q it is we are referring to. But the > > > proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . > > > Change which model of Q you mean however you like. > > > ~(2 < 2) will also be true of the new one. > > > > I've worked out a very stripped-down example of the way that > > conclusions of _valid_ proofs are true in all models > > of a theory -- and that _what it means for it to be true_ > > depends upon which model the formal language is taken > > to refer to. > > > > ---- > > Consider two non-isomorphic models, K and M, of Robinson > > arithmetic which have the same universe/domain of discourse. > > I'm sorry but you have to improve your listening ability but if your "model" > can't validate which way a specific sentence - e.g cGC - then your Robinson > Arithmetic formal system Q does _not_ have a model for you to argue about. > > So, don't concentrate on how _you_ would define your "models": just inform > sci.logic the truth value of cGC in _any_ of them. Then, we'll make a progress. I give you a discount: inform the truth value of cGC by using induction, then you _might_ have a genuine model. But not until then.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <355ac9d1-2f74-4cf5-9a96-932a9ac019c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211724 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 11:13:29 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote: > On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:57:17 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote: > > On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:48:33 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > > > On 10/13/2019 3:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote: > > > > On 10/13/2019 12:20 AM, Khong Dong wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, 12 October 2019 20:27:31 UTC-6, > > > >> Jim Burns wrote: > > > >>> On 10/12/2019 6:17 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > > > > > >>>> Listen crank, it's _your_ idea: > > > >>>> "If your U is one of those structures, then, for that U, > > > >>>> then we *know* that ~(2 < 2)". > > > > > > > >>> By referring to the universe of a model, I intended to > > > >>> be understood to be referring to the whole model. > > > >>> This is metonymy. > > > >> > > > >> Which is invalid. If U is infinite, there could be > > > >> *uncountably many* models (having the same universe U) > > > >> but are not isomorphic, hence U can't represent all > > > >> these non-isomorphic models! > > > > > > > > My point is that it is _valid reasoning_ that we are using. > > > > By _valid_ , I mean _true in all models_ . We start with > > > > statements true of all models of Q (the axioms of Q) and we > > > > progress step-by-step (obeying the truth-preserving inference > > > > rules of first-order logic) _from_ statements true of all > > > > models of Q _to_ statements true of all models of Q. > > > > > > > > You're calling my proof _invalid_ because of the ambiguity > > > > in which model of Q it is we are referring to. But the > > > > proof is a proof that ~(2 < 2) is _true in all models_ . > > > > Change which model of Q you mean however you like. > > > > ~(2 < 2) will also be true of the new one. > > > > > > I've worked out a very stripped-down example of the way that > > > conclusions of _valid_ proofs are true in all models > > > of a theory -- and that _what it means for it to be true_ > > > depends upon which model the formal language is taken > > > to refer to. > > > > > > ---- > > > Consider two non-isomorphic models, K and M, of Robinson > > > arithmetic which have the same universe/domain of discourse. > > > > I'm sorry but you have to improve your listening ability but if your "model" > > can't validate which way a specific sentence - e.g cGC - then your Robinson > > Arithmetic formal system Q does _not_ have a model for you to argue about. > > > > So, don't concentrate on how _you_ would define your "models": just inform > > sci.logic the truth value of cGC in _any_ of them. Then, we'll make a progress. > > I give you a discount: inform the truth value of cGC by using induction, then > you _might_ have a genuine model. But not until then. One of the most ridiculous (even hilarious) things about mainstream mathematics is that almost all of them would praise ZFC as the foundation of modern mathematics (in that people can use it to "construct" virtually all models of major theories like PA) and yet none of them would comprehend that Choice is only well-meant when it's necessary but in which case an absolute truth undecidability would entail - as a logical consequence!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 13:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <05dcfba3-eaf8-e60f-df20-ffc122d03eb4@att.net> |
| In reply to | #211724 |
On 10/14/2019 1:13 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:57:17 UTC-6, > Khong Dong wrote: >> On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:48:33 UTC-6, >> Jim Burns wrote: >>> I've worked out a very stripped-down example of the way >>> that conclusions of _valid_ proofs are true in all models >>> of a theory -- and that _what it means for it to be true_ >>> depends upon which model the formal language is taken >>> to refer to. >>> >>> ---- >>> Consider two non-isomorphic models, K and M, of Robinson >>> arithmetic which have the same universe/domain of discourse. >> >> I'm sorry but you have to improve your listening ability >> but if your "model" can't validate which way a specific >> sentence - e.g cGC - then your Robinson Arithmetic formal >> system Q does _not_ have a model for you to argue about. >> >> So, don't concentrate on how _you_ would define your >> "models": just inform sci.logic the truth value of cGC in >> _any_ of them. Then, we'll make a progress. > > I give you a discount: inform the truth value of cGC by > using induction, then you _might_ have a genuine model. > But not until then. Your discount is invalid. Literally invalid. Induction is not valid for all models of Robinson arithmetic. So, no thank you. Anyway, that's not how models are. A model of a theory T is a structure that obeys the axioms of T. If you demanded that any car not painted red is not a car, non-red cars would still be cars despite your demand. Instead, you're demanding that structures which obey the axioms of Q are not models of Q. That doesn't make it so. It makes you wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb6680ae-b4e9-4427-bdd4-ce468727b368@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211727 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 11:40:14 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/14/2019 1:13 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:57:17 UTC-6, > > Khong Dong wrote: > >> On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:48:33 UTC-6, > >> Jim Burns wrote: > > >>> I've worked out a very stripped-down example of the way > >>> that conclusions of _valid_ proofs are true in all models > >>> of a theory -- and that _what it means for it to be true_ > >>> depends upon which model the formal language is taken > >>> to refer to. > >>> > >>> ---- > >>> Consider two non-isomorphic models, K and M, of Robinson > >>> arithmetic which have the same universe/domain of discourse. > >> > >> I'm sorry but you have to improve your listening ability > >> but if your "model" can't validate which way a specific > >> sentence - e.g cGC - then your Robinson Arithmetic formal > >> system Q does _not_ have a model for you to argue about. > >> > >> So, don't concentrate on how _you_ would define your > >> "models": just inform sci.logic the truth value of cGC in > >> _any_ of them. Then, we'll make a progress. > > > > I give you a discount: inform the truth value of cGC by > > using induction, then you _might_ have a genuine model. > > But not until then. > > Your discount is invalid. Literally invalid. > Induction is not valid for all models of Robinson > arithmetic. So, no thank you. If you say so. > Anyway, that's not how models are. A model of a theory T > is a structure that obeys the axioms of T. A model is a language structure M for the underlying language L (Shoenfield's page 18). Consequently, if you don't have (M |= cGC) - as it's impossible to have - you don't have a _language structure_ M for your "model" of the set of axioms of Q. > > If you demanded that any car not painted red is not > a car, non-red cars would still be cars despite your > demand. As far as analogy goes, you don't even have a car to begin with! > Instead, you're demanding that structures which obey > the axioms of Q are not models of Q. That doesn't > make it so. It makes you wrong. Language structure has a separate definition by FOL and doesn't depend on such dubious notions like "obey the axioms". Do you have Shoendfield's book? Of (PA + cGC), cGC is an axiom, so would there be any model (language structure) M of (PA + cGC) in which (M |= cGC)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Khong Dong <khongdongphong@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-10-14 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a1c860f-a1c2-45df-b721-c7510fcb2314@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #211730 |
On Monday, 14 October 2019 12:24:14 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote: > On Monday, 14 October 2019 11:40:14 UTC-6, Jim Burns wrote: > > On 10/14/2019 1:13 PM, Khong Dong wrote: > > > On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:57:17 UTC-6, > > > Khong Dong wrote: > > >> On Monday, 14 October 2019 10:48:33 UTC-6, > > >> Jim Burns wrote: > > > > >>> I've worked out a very stripped-down example of the way > > >>> that conclusions of _valid_ proofs are true in all models > > >>> of a theory -- and that _what it means for it to be true_ > > >>> depends upon which model the formal language is taken > > >>> to refer to. > > >>> > > >>> ---- > > >>> Consider two non-isomorphic models, K and M, of Robinson > > >>> arithmetic which have the same universe/domain of discourse. > > >> > > >> I'm sorry but you have to improve your listening ability > > >> but if your "model" can't validate which way a specific > > >> sentence - e.g cGC - then your Robinson Arithmetic formal > > >> system Q does _not_ have a model for you to argue about. > > >> > > >> So, don't concentrate on how _you_ would define your > > >> "models": just inform sci.logic the truth value of cGC in > > >> _any_ of them. Then, we'll make a progress. > > > > > > I give you a discount: inform the truth value of cGC by > > > using induction, then you _might_ have a genuine model. > > > But not until then. > > > > Your discount is invalid. Literally invalid. > > Induction is not valid for all models of Robinson > > arithmetic. So, no thank you. > > If you say so. > > > Anyway, that's not how models are. A model of a theory T > > is a structure that obeys the axioms of T. > > A model is a language structure M for the underlying language L (Shoenfield's > page 18). Consequently, if you don't have (M |= cGC) - as it's impossible to > have - you don't have a _language structure_ M for your "model" of the set > of axioms of Q. > > > > > If you demanded that any car not painted red is not > > a car, non-red cars would still be cars despite your > > demand. > > As far as analogy goes, you don't even have a car to begin with! > > > Instead, you're demanding that structures which obey > > the axioms of Q are not models of Q. That doesn't > > make it so. It makes you wrong. > > Language structure has a separate definition by FOL and doesn't depend on such > dubious notions like "obey the axioms". Do you have Shoendfield's book? > > Of (PA + cGC), cGC is an axiom, so would there be any model (language > structure) M of (PA + cGC) in which (M |= cGC)? Well, can I quote you, Jim, to agree (PA + cGC) has a model which "obey the axioms" - your words? [If you don't answer with a clear NO, I'd take it for the record that one can quote you agreeing so.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web