Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups	sci.logic, sci.math, comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy
Subject	Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently
Date	2019-09-16 15:29 -0700
Organization	None to speak of
Message-ID	<lna7b3an9s.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <qloo6o$i4c$1@dont-email.me> <4qqdnSmfIroweuLAnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <qloqhf$1kn$1@dont-email.me> <7cOdnTrXI5WJYeLAnZ2dnUU7-c3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <qlp0lc$7t2$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes:
[...]
> Intervals are sets. In case you're not familiar with basic set theory, 
> {A, B}, {B, A}, and {A, A, B} are all the exact same set. There is no 
> order defined over the elements of a set. If you want to talk about the 
> first element or second element of a set, you'd actually need to define 
> some sort of ordering relation. For countable sets, this is trivially 
> easy to do. For uncountable sets, though, it is not. So unless you can 
> propose some way of actually determining the order of the elements in a 
> nondenumerably infinite set, this argument doesn't hold up.
>
> For example, in the interval (0, 1) can you explain how you would 
> determine the position of (e.g.) 0.25? Assume it is the nth element in 
> this set. solve for n.

So by "ordering", you mean, for example, a mapping between the
members of the set and the positive integers?  Of course no such
mapping is possible for the real interval (0, 1).  We can define
an ordering that lets us determine n, but it will miss some members
of the interval (in fact <handwave> almost all of them</handwave>).

I would have thought of an "ordering" as a relationship such that
for any two members X and Y of the set, exactly one of X<Y, X=Y,
or X>Y is true -- which is certainly the case for sets of reals.
But that kind of ordering doesn't help us determine the "first"
member of the set.

I agree with your point.  I just wanted to be clear about the
terminology.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Thread

Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500
  Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 18:32 -0500
    Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 20:03 -0500
      Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 20:59 -0500
        Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 22:16 -0500
          Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 11:14 -0500
            Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 21:00 -0500
              Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:48 -0500
            Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 13:09 -0500
              Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 14:41 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 14:08 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 15:45 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:06 -0500
              Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:24 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:33 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 22:40 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:40 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:17 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:26 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:36 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 10:06 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:22 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 10:38 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:59 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 11:10 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 13:27 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 12:34 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:19 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Transfinite Numbers <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-09-16 12:30 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 13:35 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:51 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 14:15 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 16:18 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:00 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 15:29 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:14 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2019-09-16 23:34 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 14:25 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 16:21 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:01 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 15:46 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:07 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Me <invalid@invalid.de> - 2019-09-17 01:09 +0200
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 02:33 +0100
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:53 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:55 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 19:21 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:40 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 21:38 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 00:24 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 00:22 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:39 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:38 +0100
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:17 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:13 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:29 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 22:23 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:20 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 10:56 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 11:29 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:32 +0100
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 12:49 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 19:59 +0100
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:09 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:42 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:01 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 17:51 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 15:58 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Mike Terry Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:46 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:52 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:55 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-19 14:44 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:31 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:02 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:01 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 22:39 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:23 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-18 01:39 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 09:59 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 09:21 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:41 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-18 13:55 -0700
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 16:17 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ CONCURRENCE ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:10 -0500
      Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 09:05 -0600
        Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 10:49 -0500
          Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 10:02 -0600
            Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:18 -0500
              Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 23:24 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 10:01 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:13 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:56 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:40 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 11:03 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 12:48 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 12:25 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 22:35 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:42 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:28 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy Goofed) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 18:00 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 09:42 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:13 -0600
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:36 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:38 -0500
                Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:21 -0500
          Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:55 -0500
          Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 13:03 -0500
            Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 12:34 -0600
              Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:38 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:00 -0600
      Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 00:55 -0500
        Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:33 -0500
    Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:25 -0500
    Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:26 -0500
      Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:24 -0500
        Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 22:43 -0500
          Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 23:12 -0600
          Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:19 -0500
            Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 21:23 -0600
              Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:31 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 22:04 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 23:21 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 22:40 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 00:27 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 23:55 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 00:59 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 00:12 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:15 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 09:35 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:00 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 10:14 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:26 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 10:42 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 13:10 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 12:36 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 13:49 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 12:59 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 14:12 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 13:30 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 14:45 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 14:14 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 15:29 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 14:38 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 15:56 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 20:38 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 22:03 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 21:33 -0600
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:35 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 09:00 -0700
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:42 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 10:04 -0700
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 10:14 -0700
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 12:43 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> - 2019-09-19 15:03 -0700
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-18 22:16 -0700
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:24 -0500
            Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 23:32 -0500
              Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 23:21 -0600
              Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:13 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 19:49 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 09:45 -0500
                Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 15:22 -0500
  Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-11 22:23 -0700
    Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 01:07 -0500
      Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-12 22:24 -0700
        Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:34 -0500
          Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-15 22:31 -0700
            Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 09:55 -0500
              Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2019-09-16 22:17 -0700

csiph-web