Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #422415 > unrolled thread
| Started by | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-29 05:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-28 08:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 452 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-29 05:07 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-29 07:34 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-29 08:07 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-29 08:14 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-29 13:39 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-29 14:57 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 00:12 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-30 07:22 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-30 07:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 07:38 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-30 09:14 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 09:39 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-30 10:06 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 05:50 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 06:32 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 07:41 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 08:49 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 09:02 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 11:10 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 11:29 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 11:47 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-02 11:11 +0200
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 22:44 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 00:19 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-08-30 16:34 +0000
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 09:50 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 17:10 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-29 21:53 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-29 23:48 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 16:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-08-29 21:05 +0000
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 00:06 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 00:55 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 01:15 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 17:13 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-29 18:28 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 00:14 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-31 15:06 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 05:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-01 19:45 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 03:34 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-02 11:22 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 12:23 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-02 18:07 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 03:46 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-03 12:26 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 13:22 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-03 15:44 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 02:56 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 03:37 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 04:37 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:41 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 03:57 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 22:31 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 04:48 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 18:08 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-04 03:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 04:39 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-09-04 04:58 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-09-05 07:15 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-09-10 14:20 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-04 05:09 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-04 19:15 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 05:03 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-05 16:27 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 04:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 04:48 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 05:12 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 05:24 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 05:33 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 10:11 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 11:03 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 11:15 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 06:12 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 10:09 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 22:38 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-07 04:36 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 22:43 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 02:59 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 03:36 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 12:12 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 22:17 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 06:54 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 04:09 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-13 07:44 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 22:29 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 22:32 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-11 07:01 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-11 19:20 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-12 04:37 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-12 18:36 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-13 07:44 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-13 18:29 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-14 05:31 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 05:49 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-14 06:12 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 06:23 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-15 05:04 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 22:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-14 20:30 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-15 05:06 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-15 17:19 -0500
Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-16 05:13 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-16 17:37 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-17 05:55 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 06:01 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-17 06:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 06:31 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-17 06:41 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 23:46 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-18 03:46 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-17 21:56 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-18 03:46 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 06:06 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-18 13:17 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 23:24 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 06:01 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 06:11 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 06:27 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-20 06:34 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 22:40 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-21 07:00 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-09-22 06:11 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-22 11:24 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-22 11:30 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-22 11:32 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-22 11:32 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-20 06:31 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 06:49 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-20 06:53 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 08:22 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-20 08:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 13:31 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Angus MacAusland <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 13:35 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 14:07 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-20 16:13 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-20 16:10 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-18 22:33 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-19 03:16 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 06:21 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-19 06:02 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 19:36 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-20 06:05 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-20 19:04 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-21 06:57 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-21 20:03 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-22 05:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-22 07:35 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-22 11:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-23 21:46 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-24 07:52 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-24 21:36 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 06:05 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-25 20:09 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-26 00:12 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-27 06:19 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-27 23:41 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 03:37 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 03:54 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 04:21 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 04:38 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-29 19:07 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-17 04:15 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? pirx42 <user@example.net> - 2018-10-17 13:43 +0200
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 05:18 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 05:19 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 05:26 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "angus.macausland" <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 14:51 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-17 13:13 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? ich <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:46 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-18 11:43 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:27 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-22 14:48 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-22 11:27 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 12:08 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 22:29 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-23 10:50 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-23 14:20 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-23 10:27 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-24 17:39 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-24 10:29 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-25 16:41 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-25 10:37 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-30 17:21 +0000
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 22:35 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-25 03:23 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 04:34 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-25 05:20 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 05:40 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-25 06:52 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 22:29 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-26 13:34 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 23:21 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-30 04:52 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 04:56 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-30 05:54 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 06:08 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 23:20 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-31 02:51 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 23:29 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-01 03:04 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 03:29 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-02 06:01 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-25 07:09 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-25 17:17 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-25 10:44 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 22:32 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-30 17:26 +0000
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-30 12:02 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-30 20:47 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-31 02:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-31 17:53 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-01 03:11 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-01 17:24 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-02 22:45 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-03 03:03 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-03 23:12 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-04 08:30 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 09:31 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-05 02:55 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-04 23:23 -0600
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-05 02:53 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-05 13:44 -0600
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-06 02:22 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 22:44 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-08 09:00 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 23:02 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-10 02:25 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? ich <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 02:55 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-11 23:06 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-12 01:58 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 02:41 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-12 10:30 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-11-12 10:59 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-11-12 11:15 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-11-12 11:18 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:59 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 11:02 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-13 13:48 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 15:00 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 22:35 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-13 13:48 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 15:21 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 22:53 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-09 18:16 -0600
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-10 02:18 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-13 18:43 -0600
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-14 10:06 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-14 20:39 -0600
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:28 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-05 02:53 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 03:32 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-05 05:13 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 05:17 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-05 05:41 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 05:47 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-06 02:23 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 06:36 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 06:38 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-06 02:23 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:25 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-05 02:53 -0800
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-25 16:57 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-25 10:57 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-30 17:29 +0000
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 13:09 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 13:10 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-17 23:00 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-18 11:43 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 22:17 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-19 12:47 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 22:36 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-22 02:47 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 03:31 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-22 04:20 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 05:27 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-22 11:29 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-22 11:40 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-22 11:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-22 11:49 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-22 11:52 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-23 08:47 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 22:32 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 12:14 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-23 08:51 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 12:37 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-19 07:48 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-19 08:01 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-19 12:59 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-19 13:30 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-19 13:34 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-20 00:57 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-19 21:21 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-20 01:04 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-20 01:40 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-20 11:54 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 12:45 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-20 14:05 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 13:08 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-20 16:44 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-21 16:45 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-22 02:35 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-22 19:52 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-23 09:27 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-23 19:50 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-24 02:07 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 03:18 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-24 07:02 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 07:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-24 17:48 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-24 10:40 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2018-10-25 16:29 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-24 11:14 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-24 21:21 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-25 03:23 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-25 17:34 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-26 13:38 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-26 13:51 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-26 22:10 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-27 05:01 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-10-27 07:14 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-29 22:28 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-30 04:41 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 05:22 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-30 20:52 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-10-31 02:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-31 17:58 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-01 03:04 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-01 17:30 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 15:57 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-02 06:03 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-02 22:46 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-03 03:01 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-03 23:13 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-02 05:28 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-02 22:48 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-11-03 03:01 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-03 23:14 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 23:39 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-24 07:52 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 03:13 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Angus MacAusland <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 03:51 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 06:04 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 06:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 22:21 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-27 06:28 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-27 09:21 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-27 10:44 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 03:27 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 22:28 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 03:00 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-04 03:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-04 04:38 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-04 05:09 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 03:52 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 10:03 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 18:04 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 22:24 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-27 06:24 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-27 23:43 -0500
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 18:05 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 18:23 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 00:16 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-08-30 17:10 +0000
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 22:42 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 00:18 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-30 09:00 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 01:15 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 01:33 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-08-30 01:39 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 01:44 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 02:35 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 03:36 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 04:48 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 05:14 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 05:31 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 05:43 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 07:22 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 07:53 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 09:37 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 10:58 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 11:00 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 11:06 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 06:00 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 07:18 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 22:48 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 08:40 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 22:52 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 03:51 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 05:41 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 13:22 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-30 10:02 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 02:32 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-08-30 17:20 +0000
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-08-31 07:46 +0100
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 05:44 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-09-02 11:04 +0200
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 03:38 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 17:35 -0700
SUMMARY: How WM failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-30 11:32 -0700
How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-30 11:54 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 05:47 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 06:35 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 08:46 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 09:12 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 11:12 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 11:45 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 11:51 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 12:08 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 12:15 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-08-31 12:22 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 05:26 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-09-01 06:08 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 03:34 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-09-02 12:12 +0000
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-02 05:21 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-09-02 14:34 +0000
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-02 08:05 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-09-02 15:22 +0000
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-02 09:12 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 12:18 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 12:17 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-09-02 20:48 +0000
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 03:43 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 12:09 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-09-02 20:42 +0000
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 03:43 -0700
Re: How WM has failed YET AGAIN! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-09-03 20:17 +0000
- transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-03 13:29 -0700
Re: - Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2018-09-04 16:26 +0000
Re: - transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 04:00 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 16:25 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-27 06:19 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 22:27 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 01:16 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 04:52 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 04:54 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-28 05:17 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 05:45 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 05:48 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-28 08:17 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 12:31 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-09-28 12:35 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 22:49 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 05:50 -0700
Re: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-09-28 08:19 -0700
Page 14 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 23 Next page →
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 06:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <96405636-d91c-4d51-979f-99b77c355a69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426761 |
There is no induction schema: forall n in N P(n) => P(M) Where would you get it from? Am Montag, 5. November 2018 14:13:16 UTC+1 schrieb WM: > Am Montag, 5. November 2018 12:32:15 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum: > > > even the fact that any finite intersection is non-empty proves nothing when intersecting all of them. > > That is belief in matheology. It is nonsense. In logic, the fact that every finite intersection has aleph_0 elements shows that the infinite intersection has aleph_0 elements. > > Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 06:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <59f4e142-adb0-4a54-a347-d55e2ead3996@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426770 |
Corr.:
/* WMs Fallacy */
forall n in N P(n) => P(N)
Am Montag, 5. November 2018 15:37:10 UTC+1 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:
> There is no induction schema:
>
> forall n in N P(n) => P(M)
>
> Where would you get it from?
>
> Am Montag, 5. November 2018 14:13:16 UTC+1 schrieb WM:
> > Am Montag, 5. November 2018 12:32:15 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum:
> >
> > > even the fact that any finite intersection is non-empty proves nothing when intersecting all of them.
> >
> > That is belief in matheology. It is nonsense. In logic, the fact that every finite intersection has aleph_0 elements shows that the infinite intersection has aleph_0 elements.
> >
> > Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 02:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <026107f2-b9db-43ec-bf1b-cab14524ae0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426770 |
Am Montag, 5. November 2018 15:37:10 UTC+1 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:
> There is no induction schema:
>
> forall n in N P(n) => P(M)
>
> Where would you get it from?
The limit
lim(k-->oo) |E_1 n E_2 n ... n E_k| = aleph_0
shows that aleph_0 elements are common to all endsegments.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 22:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <179e3861-478c-42c4-817c-a57733f3473e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426627 |
>That is a false claim. Further it is counterfactual. In order to see this, unless you are blind, find a successor with aleph_0 elements but not all of them in all its predecessors.
Incorrect, it is true.
let x e E_n, then E_{x+1} lacks x, therefore it doesn't have that element in common with E_{x+1}, as the element is arbitrary, it is true for all of them, ergo there exist no element in E_n that is in all successive E_m's, with m>n.
>Also when intersected with all successors.
False, the intersection is empty when doing all. Any finite number of endsegments intersection has aleph-0 but when its all of them, its empty.
>Call the set as you like. There is an infinite subset Y common to all predecessors and all successors, in short: common to all endsegments E_n with finite index n.
Incorrect, no such set exists. It is trivial to prove it cannot exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 02:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <204e421b-71e3-4751-b754-e92e25ce8d2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426732 |
Am Montag, 5. November 2018 07:25:31 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum:
> False, the intersection is empty when doing all. Any finite number of endsegments intersection has aleph-0 but when its all of them, its empty.
All of them can be proven not empty by their limit k --> oo:
lim |E_1 n E_2 n ... n E_k| = aleph_0 .
>
> >Call the set as you like. There is an infinite subset Y common to all predecessors and all successors, in short: common to all endsegments E_n with finite index n.
>
> Incorrect, no such set exists. It is trivial to prove it cannot exist.
It is trivil to prove that it must exist. At least for all finite intersections we have
E_1 n E_2 n ... n E_k = E_k U (Y - E_k) with |Y| = aleph_0.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 16:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fwe7ei6f280.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #426156 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes: > Lemma There is an infinite set X subset of all endsegments. > > Proof by contradiction: If there is an endsegment E(n) that has not > aleph_0 elements in common with any succeeding endsegment E(n+k), then > there is an endsegment, namely E(n+k), that has aleph_0 elements but > not aleph_0 elements in common with a preceding endsegment, namely > E(n), contradicting E(n+k) c E(n). So far so good. The claim that if n < m, then E(m) is subset of E(n) and that E(m) is infinite is also obvious. No need to labour that point. > So all endsegments have aleph_0 > elements in common. No way does that follow, unless there is a last element in the sequence of endsequences. But that is false, in both potantial and actual infinity: in both you have for each n, there is a later endsequent. Any potentially infinite collection is capable of being extended. > They are elements of the subset X. X is the empty set. > > Regards, WM > -- Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 10:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2d40f29c-b20c-4e18-9f8d-f9f9f7cc06c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426175 |
Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 18:00:09 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill: > WM <wolfgang.: > > So all endsegments have aleph_0 > > elements in common. > > They are elements of the subset X. > > X is the empty set. No. Either every set has the same subset X of card aleph_0, or not every set has has this subset X of card aleph_0. Assume the latter. Let Y be the first set of the sequence that has less than aleph_0 elements in common with its predecessors. Since every set has card aleph_0, also Y has card aleph_0. Then Y has elements that are not in its predecessors. Contradiction Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-30 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fweva5jfimz.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #426179 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes: > Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 18:00:09 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill: >> WM <wolfgang.: > > >> > So all endsegments have aleph_0 >> > elements in common. > >> > They are elements of the subset X. >> >> X is the empty set. > > No. Yes: forall n:|N. not (n in endSeg(n+1)) is provable, in potential infinity and in ZF. QED. > > Regards, WM -- Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dcbd05c0-03d8-44be-949a-c4a9721391fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425828 |
Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 21:54:16 UTC+2 schrieb WM: > Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 10:27:52 UTC+2 schrieb me: > > > > I guess you mean: The number of elements in E_n will always be aleph_0 for > > all endsegements. In other words: An e IN: card(E_n) = aleph_0. > > > > Right. > > > > Note though that no numbers are elements in all E_n. > > > If there is a set X of aleph_0 elements in all E_n, then this set X is a > subset of all E_n. You sounds confused, still this might be helpful for you: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quanshif.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30aa60dd-c3cb-45a8-8525-729c4a9165bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425828 |
Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 21:54:16 UTC+2 schrieb WM: > Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 10:27:52 UTC+2 schrieb me: > > > > I guess you mean: The number of elements in E_n will always be aleph_0 for > > all endsegements. In other words: An e IN: card(E_n) = aleph_0. > > > > Right. > > > > Note though that no numbers are elements in all E_n. > > > If there is a set X of aleph_0 elements in all E_n, then this set X is a > subset of all E_n. You sound confused, still this might be helpful for you: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/quanshif.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 23:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pq90g7$irj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425715 |
On 10/17/2018 6:15 AM, WM wrote: > Am Sonntag, 30. September 2018 02:07:10 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > > >> With infinite resources, I can refer to each natural number and not >> leave any that I haven't referred to. The fact that there are no natural >> numbers for which there are only a finite number of larger numbers is of >> no relevance. > > The fact proves that there is a set of aleph_0 numbers that you cannot refer to whereas there is only a finite initial segment of numbers you can refer to. Otherwise, there would be a set of aleph_0 referable numbers followed by a set of aleph_0 not referable numbers. Contradiction. The fact that every natural number can be referred to does not prove that there is a set of aleph_0 natural numbers that you cannot refer to. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <49378062-f7eb-4901-9a1a-b5cecb95d44a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425750 |
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2018 06:00:13 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin:
> The fact that every natural number can be referred to does not prove
> that there is a set of aleph_0 natural numbers that you cannot refer to.
Consider all endsegments E_n = {n, n+1, n+2, ...}.
∀ n ∈ |N: n is not in all endsegments.
∀ n ∈ |N: The endsegment E_n contains aleph_0 natural numbers
In words: All natural numbers that can be referred to will eventually be missing in the sequence (E_n) of endsegments.
aleph_0 natural numbers will never be missing in the sequence (E_n) of endsegments.
In short: All natural numbers will be missing but infinitely many natural numbers will not be missing. No contradiction of course in the theory of Zero Findable Contradictions.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aeeaba0d-393f-4d32-9d5f-556b59234de1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425774 |
>In words: All natural numbers that can be referred to will eventually be missing in the sequence (E_n) of endsegments. ALL natural numbers, you don't need anything more ontop of it, they ALL will be missing eventually in the endsegment sequence when n is sufficiently large >In short: All natural numbers will be missing but infinitely many natural numbers will not be missing. No contradiction of course in the theory of Zero Findable Contradictions. There is no contradiction cause you are conflating statements. The fact that each one has the same cardinality and that all natural numbers will be no further endsegment beyond a point, is not a contradiction. They are not P and ~P and they don't imply both a P and ~P. You fail AGAIN!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ad0e6d3-75aa-4455-85cb-0d96e183db44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425790 |
Am Freitag, 19. Oktober 2018 07:17:38 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >In short: All natural numbers will be missing but infinitely many natural numbers will not be missing. No contradiction of course in the theory of Zero Findable Contradictions. > > There is no contradiction cause you are conflating statements. > > The fact that each one has the same cardinality and that all natural numbers will be no further endsegment beyond a point, is not a contradiction. > > They are not P and ~P and they don't imply both a P and ~P. Let X be a set of aleph_0 numbers that is in every Endsegment from the first E_1 to the nth E_n. Then we have ∀n ∈ |N: X ⊆ E_n ∃n ∈ |N: ~X ⊆ E_n This is a contradiction. If we drop the second statement, then the intersection over all E_n is not empty but X. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 22:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ad9ca4be-c0e4-44e3-8829-70e46ddb4757@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425827 |
>Let X be a set of aleph_0 numbers
Demosntration of how sloppy you are, it is phrased "Let X be a set with cardinality aleph_0"
>This is a contradiction. If we drop the second statement, then the intersection over all E_n is not empty but X.
That would be a contradiction if both were true however the first one is NOT true.
There exist no such set X that ∀n ∈ |N: X ⊆ E_n is true.
By the fact natural numbers are well-ordered, it cannot exist.
>If there is a set X of aleph_0 elements in all E_n, then this set X is a subset of all E_n.
IF s the keyword cause your set X does not exist.
>Each and every n belongs to a finite initial segment whereas the infinite set X is subset of an infinite endsegment. Therefore your argument for n concerns only a small minority of natural numbers.
the fact that Ax e |N E n e |N, x e I_n is true does not in anyway affect this here.
>Further ***every*** n belongs to a finite initial segment whereas X belongs to an infinite endsegment. Therefore a proof for every n never is concusive.
Entirely irreleant, your "initial segment" as you talked about so many times has already been shown to be all of |N cause it contains all antural numbers. Your X does not exist.
>X is not |N but an infinite set following upon all natural numbers that can appear as first element of an endsegmen
This is nonsense if I have ever seen any. Holy shit, tehre is no such X, it does not exist.
>No. Every natural number that can be referred to belongs to a finite initial segment which is followed by an infinite endsegment.
And its entirely irrelevant. There exist no mystical subset of natural numbers that cannot be used.
I will prove that that your X does not exist.
X is a subset of |N, that means it has a least element, we call it m.
I pick E_{m+1}, which lacks m, therefore X is not a subset of E_{m+1}, a contradiction. Our assumption that X exists must be false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 02:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8712cb8c-99b9-4091-82df-3e3660475142@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425934 |
Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2018 07:36:33 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: >> ∀n ∈ |N: X ⊆ E_n > There exist no such set X that ∀n ∈ |N: X ⊆ E_n is true. > > By the fact natural numbers are well-ordered, it cannot exist. But it must exist by the fact that all endsegments have aleph_0 numbers and these numbers are in all endsegments from the first one on. > > >If there is a set X of aleph_0 elements in all E_n, then this set X is a subset of all E_n. > > IF s the keyword cause your set X does not exist. Every E_n contains aleph_0 elements. None of the elements has been added after the first set E_0. So they are in all endsegments. > > >Each and every n belongs to a finite initial segment whereas the infinite set X is subset of an infinite endsegment. Therefore your argument for n concerns only a small minority of natural numbers. > > the fact that Ax e |N E n e |N, x e I_n is true does not in anyway affect this here. Wrong. It shows that every x that you can chose belongs to a finite set and is followed by an infinite set. > > >Further ***every*** n belongs to a finite initial segment whereas X belongs to an infinite endsegment. Therefore a proof for every n never is concusive. > > Entirely irreleant, your "initial segment" as you talked about so many times has already been shown to be all of |N Wrong again. It is followed by aleph_0 numbers. So it cannot be all |N. > I will prove that that your X does not exist. > X is a subset of |N, that means it has a least element This is the fallacy already, because no element of X can be identified. You can only identify elements that belong to a finite set. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 03:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <956abc6c-b46e-4407-92a0-f60496107679@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425959 |
>But it must exist by the fact that all endsegments have aleph_0 numbers and these numbers are in all endsegments from the first one on. Incorrect, the cardinality of the endsegment has no impact on if such a set exists. >Every E_n contains aleph_0 elements. None of the elements has been added after the first set E_0. So they are in all endsegments. And again, it has no imapct on your mystical X >Wrong. It shows that every x that you can chose belongs to a finite set and is followed by an infinite set. Which is what it fuckign says you moron! And it still is entirely IRRELEVANT here. >Wrong again. It is followed by aleph_0 numbers. So it cannot be all |N. Then it has a final element, a maximal element so you cannot claim I cannot pick the maximal element. >This is the fallacy already, because no element of X can be identified. You can only identify elements that belong to a finite set. This is wrong because there is nothign in mathematics that says that. Sorry, you lose!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 04:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83e27524-72bf-4d53-8569-545a1491c43a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425965 |
Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2018 12:31:30 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > Then it has a final element, a maximal element so you cannot claim I cannot pick the maximal element. > > >This is the fallacy already, because no element of X can be identified. You can only identify elements that belong to a finite set. > > This is wrong because there is nothign in mathematics that says that. Mathematics says that every element of E_n is an element of E_0. FOL can express this for every n in |N: E_n is subset of E_0. Mathematics proves that every E_n has aleph_0 elements. What do you not understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 05:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ca06694-6212-4fde-98cd-40fba19f7377@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425971 |
>What do you not understand? The question is more what you don't understand. There is no issue with those statements but none of those implies a magical set X that is a subset of ALL E_n
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 11:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <198e9027-6ab8-4236-aa10-36dfb5439b65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425975 |
Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2018 14:28:01 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >What do you not understand? > > The question is more what you don't understand. > > There is no issue with those statements but none of those implies a magical set X that is a subset of ALL E_n Every set E_n is infinite. It contains an infinite set X and some identifyable elements. If a set contains X + ..., does it contain X? Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web