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 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6f5f672-0099-43a4-a788-4ce30a5f458b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425873 |
Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018 21:45:16 UTC+2 schrieb me:
> Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018 20:55:08 UTC+2 schrieb WM:
> > Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018 10:40:59 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:
>
> > The claim that infinitely many natural numbers can be identified is refuted.
>
> It doesn't matter, since no one other than you claims that "infinitely many natural numbers can be identified".
Set theory is based on the idea that infinitely many numbers can be counted. Counting requires identifying.
> > All identifyable numbers belong to finite initial segments ...
>
> Well, this may be the case (or not), but in fact ALL natural numbers (not just the ones you call "identifyable") belong to finite initial segments.
Not quite correct. Every finite initial segment is succeeded by an infinite endsegment consisting of natural numbers.
>
> Proof: An e IN: n e {1, ..., n}. qed
Not quite correct. Your proof concerns only identifyable numbers, not the always existing but never fully accessible infinite endsegment.
>
> In mathematics/set theory we know that infinitely many natural numbers are followed by infinitely many natural numbers.
No. Two infinite sets, one succeeding the other, would crash. You cannot split the infinite sequence 1, 2, 3, ... into two halves. Every identifyable number belongs to a finite initial segment whoch is followed by an infinite endsegment of mainly inaccessible, i.e., not identifyable numbers.
> With other words, each and every natural number is followed by infinitely many natural numbers. That suffices
to show that the infinite set consists of almost only inaccessible numbers.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dba549af-e543-4b50-b209-7b45dbff9dab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425876 |
Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018 23:05:15 UTC+2 schrieb WM: > Set theory is based on the idea that infinitely many numbers can be counted. Nope. > [Nonsense deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 16:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <448c60dd-22b6-47de-868e-c31158c90544@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425872 |
I didn't claim that infinitely numbers can be identified.
I even don't know what identified should mean. Here
n is a variable, hence n is not identified:
n
E_1 : **********|***************
E_2 : o*********|***************
E_3 : oo********|***************
E_4 : ooo*******|***************
...
E_m : oooooooooo|oo*************
E_m+1 : oooooooooo|ooo***********
What are you brabling about?
Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018 20:55:08 UTC+2 schrieb WM:
> Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018 10:40:59 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com:
> > Here a graphical Proof of 2) and as well of 1).
> >
> > n
> > E_1 : **********|***************
> > E_2 : o*********|***************
> > E_3 : oo********|***************
> > E_4 : ooo*******|***************
> > ...
> > E_m : oooooooooo|oo*************
> > E_m+1 : oooooooooo|ooo************
> > ...
> >
> > Every Endsegment is infinite. And for every
> > Number n, you can poke the cake, and you hit
> > up Endsegments E_m, with n not in E_m.
>
> Correct. But note that a number n that you can hit is identifyable.
> All identifyable numbers belong to finite initial segments which are followed by infinite endsegments consisting of almost only unidentifyable numbers.
>
> It is impossible that infinitely many identifyable numbers could be followed by infinitely many unidentifyable numbers.
> >
> > There is no contradiction.
>
> There is a contradiction.
> Every number that *has been* identified belongs to a finite initial segment that is followed by an infinite tail of numbers that *have not yet* been identified.
>
> This situation however will never change. Therefore the "yet" is permanent. The claim that infinitely many natural numbers can be identified is refuted.
>
> Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 16:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pqis1k$oat$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425860 |
On 10/20/2018 3:04 AM, WM wrote:
> Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018 04:21:43 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin:
>> On 10/18/2018 1:43 PM, WM wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> And that's all there are.
>
> No. Every natural number that can be referred to belongs to a finite initial segment which is followed by an infinite endsegment.
And the infinite endsegment contains only natural numbers that can be
referred to.
>>> aleph_0 natural numbers will never be missing in the sequence (E_n) of endsegments.
>>
>> And each of the natural numbers in each of those sets can be referred to.
>
> The last one?
Doesn't exist.
> The one next to the last one?
Doesn't exist.
> The one next to the next to the last one?
Doesn't exist.
> And so on? No. There are aleph_0 numbers that cannot be referred to.
They don't exist.
>>> In short: All natural numbers will be missing but infinitely many natural numbers will not be missing.
>
>> This "in short" says something different.
>
> It says what you claim.
It is not my claim.
Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 02:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5795982-4f9d-4826-92f5-f7c637faccc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425922 |
Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2018 23:45:30 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin:
> On 10/20/2018 3:04 AM, WM wrote:
> > No. Every natural number that can be referred to belongs to a finite initial segment which is followed by an infinite endsegment.
>
> And the infinite endsegment contains only natural numbers that can be
> referred to.
There is the limit of cardinalities of endsegments: lim |E_n| = aleph_0.
That means all endsegments contain aleph_0 numbers: |E_n| = aleph_0 for all n.
There is the limit of endsegments lim E_n = { }.
That means aleph_0 numbers have been lost by a sudden jump. They never got to the first position but were forming the tails of the endsegments.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-22 19:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pqlrc0$4t8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #425957 |
On 10/22/2018 4:35 AM, WM wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 21. Oktober 2018 23:45:30 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin:
>> On 10/20/2018 3:04 AM, WM wrote:
>
>
>>> No. Every natural number that can be referred to belongs to a finite initial segment which is followed by an infinite endsegment.
>>
>> And the infinite endsegment contains only natural numbers that can be
>> referred to.
>
> There is the limit of cardinalities of endsegments: lim |E_n| = aleph_0.
Correct.
> That means all endsegments contain aleph_0 numbers: |E_n| = aleph_0 for all n.
Correct.
> There is the limit of endsegments lim E_n = { }.
Correct.
> That means aleph_0 numbers have been lost by a sudden jump. They never got to the first position but were forming the tails of the endsegments.
Incorrect. There is no step in which there is a sudden jump. Each
element get to the first position in a finite number of steps.
Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6c65ef3f-421a-4a9e-9154-6a66dc2f4631@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426016 |
Am Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2018 02:52:23 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 10/22/2018 4:35 AM, WM wrote: > > > That means aleph_0 numbers have been lost by a sudden jump. They never got to the first position but were forming the tails of the endsegments. > > Incorrect. There is no step in which there is a sudden jump. Each > element get to the first position in a finite number of steps. Infinitely many Elements never get to the first position in a finite number of steps. Note that at *every* finite number of steps there are almost all elements behind the first position. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-23 19:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pqofkl$ut6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426060 |
On 10/23/2018 11:27 AM, WM wrote: > Am Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2018 02:52:23 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 10/22/2018 4:35 AM, WM wrote: > >> >>> That means aleph_0 numbers have been lost by a sudden jump. They never got to the first position but were forming the tails of the endsegments. >> >> Incorrect. There is no step in which there is a sudden jump. Each >> element get to the first position in a finite number of steps. > > Infinitely many Elements never get to the first position in a finite number of steps. No. Each element gets to the first position in a finite number of steps. > Note that at *every* finite number of steps there are almost all elements behind the first position. And almost all steps left to execute. So not a problem. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 02:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae4a4957-61f4-4e13-9058-833d3476e64b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426086 |
Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 02:50:37 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 10/23/2018 11:27 AM, WM wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2018 02:52:23 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > >> On 10/22/2018 4:35 AM, WM wrote: > > > >> > >>> That means aleph_0 numbers have been lost by a sudden jump. They never got to the first position but were forming the tails of the endsegments. > >> > >> Incorrect. There is no step in which there is a sudden jump. Each > >> element get to the first position in a finite number of steps. > > > > Infinitely many Elements never get to the first position in a finite number of steps. > > No. Each element gets to the first position in a finite number of steps. In each of infinitely many endsegments there are aleph_0 elements not at the first position. So they cannot be at the first position after a finite number of steps. > > > Note that at *every* finite number of steps there are almost all elements behind the first position. > > And almost all steps left to execute. Correct, But this situation never changes. There are for every selected or identified n almost all natural numbers not selected or identified. This proves that almost all numbers cannot be selected or identified. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 03:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <279c7556-b481-4203-a4d7-c31334234ad9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426102 |
Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 11:07:58 UTC+2 schrieb WM: > There are for every selected or identified n almost all natural numbers not > selected or identified. This proves that almost all numbers cannot be selected > or identified ... IN A FINITE PROCESS. On the other hand, it's "possible" (or at least conceivable) in the context of a supertask (if we allow for them). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertask Note though, that set theory does not rely on "supertasks".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4507db61-b99f-456f-940c-2493e0f6632f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426106 |
Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 12:18:32 UTC+2 schrieb me: > Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 11:07:58 UTC+2 schrieb WM: > > > There are for every selected or identified n almost all natural numbers not > > selected or identified. This proves that almost all numbers cannot be selected > > or identified ... > > IN A FINITE PROCESS. There are no infinite processes. > > On the other hand, it's "possible" (or at least conceivable) in the context of a supertask (if we allow for them). Definition: A natural number n is identifyable if it can occupy the first position of an endsegment Theorem: There is only a potentially infinite (i.e., always finite but not bounded) number of indetifyable natural numbers. The theorem holds for every endsegment of the supertask. > > Note though, that set theory does not rely on "supertasks". But on logic. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 07:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ca29e7f0-d8ce-4aea-9cf1-0df827a9d7ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426108 |
Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 16:02:55 UTC+2 schrieb WM:
> There are no infinite processes.
If you say so.
> Definition: A natural number n is identifyable if it can occupy the first
> position of an endsegment
Theorem: Each and every natural number is identifyable.
Proof: An e IN: n = min(E_n), since E_n = {m e IN : m >= n} for any n e IN. Hence An e IN Ek e IN: n = min(E_k). qed
> > Note, that set theory does not rely on "supertasks".
> >
> But on logic.
Indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <19aa8e7b-598e-4b01-9c5f-dcea3020936c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426111 |
Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 16:25:36 UTC+2 schrieb me:
> Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 16:02:55 UTC+2 schrieb WM:
>
>
> > There are no infinite processes.
>
> If you say so.
>
> > Definition: A natural number n is identifyable if it can occupy the first
> > position of an endsegment
>
> Theorem: Each and every natural number is identifyable.
>
> Proof: An e IN: n = min(E_n), since E_n = {m e IN : m >= n} for any n e IN. Hence An e IN Ek e IN: n = min(E_k). qed
You have proved: Each and every identifyable natural number is identifyable.
Great!
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 17:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fwek1m79tpy.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #426114 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 16:25:36 UTC+2 schrieb me:
>> Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 16:02:55 UTC+2 schrieb WM:
>>
>> > There are no infinite processes.
>>
>> If you say so.
>>
>> > Definition: A natural number n is identifyable if it can occupy the first
>> > position of an endsegment
Let's please use English: identifiable.
>> Theorem: Each and every natural number is identifyable.
>>
>> Proof: An e IN: n = min(E_n), since E_n = {m e IN : m >= n} for any
>> n e IN. Hence An e IN Ek e IN: n = min(E_k). qed
>
> You have proved: Each and every identifyable natural number is identifyable.
Wrong: this uses *your* definition of "identifiable number", and
basic logic to show that all naturals are identifiable.
Similarly, induction (a proof method you accept) proves:
all n: |N some y : |N (not (n in Edndsegment(y))
-- doesn't it?
> Regards, WM
>
--
Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f51a8ae-0be4-4088-b79f-a309e913143c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426117 |
Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 18:50:07 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill:
> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:
> Let's please use English: identifiable.
Thank you!
>
> >> Theorem: Each and every natural number is identifyable.
> >>
> >> Proof: An e IN: n = min(E_n), since E_n = {m e IN : m >= n} for any
> >> n e IN. Hence An e IN Ek e IN: n = min(E_k). qed
> >
> > You have proved: Each and every identifyable natural number is identifyable.
>
> Wrong: this uses *your* definition of "identifiable number", and
> basic logic to show that all naturals are identifiable.
Basic logic shows also that every endsegment contains aleph_0 numbers. Are numbers among them which are in all endsegments, then the intersection is not empty. Otherwise inclusion monotony is violated.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 16:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fwetvlaf3jc.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #426120 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 18:50:07 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill:
>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:
>
>
>> Let's please use English: identifiable.
>
> Thank you!
>>
>> >> Theorem: Each and every natural number is identifyable.
>> >>
>> >> Proof: An e IN: n = min(E_n), since E_n = {m e IN : m >= n} for any
>> >> n e IN. Hence An e IN Ek e IN: n = min(E_k). qed
>> >
>> > You have proved: Each and every identifyable natural number is
>> > identifyable.
>>
>> Wrong: this uses *your* definition of "identifiable number", and
>> basic logic to show that all naturals are identifiable.
>
> Basic logic shows also that every endsegment contains aleph_0
> numbers. Are numbers among them which are in all endsegments, then the
> intersection is not empty. Otherwise inclusion monotony is violated.
Wrong topic;
try reading what you are replying to before responding.
The question at issue is whether each natural is
identifiable. You have no disagreement with that, then.
> Regards, WM
--
Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87364379-58ae-4717-8662-cb4fb31ae532@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426108 |
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 10:02:55 AM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 12:18:32 UTC+2 schrieb me:
> > Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 11:07:58 UTC+2 schrieb WM:
> >
> > > There are for every selected or identified n almost all natural numbers not
> > > selected or identified. This proves that almost all numbers cannot be selected
> > > or identified ...
> >
> > IN A FINITE PROCESS.
>
> There are no infinite processes.
Nonsense. Calculus is full of infinite processes. And, unlike your goofy system, it actually works.
> >
> > On the other hand, it's "possible" (or at least conceivable) in the context of a supertask (if we allow for them).
>
In moving for one point in space to another, you would pass through infinitely many intermediate points -- a so-called "supertask." Nothing wrong with that.
> Definition: A natural number n is identifyable if it can occupy the first position of an endsegment
>
By this definition, all elements of N are "identfiable."
Proof: Assume n in N. By the axioms of set theory, there exists a set E_n = {x in N: x >= n}. E_n is what you call an "endsegment" with n occupying the first position. So, n must be "identifiable." Generalizing, we have as required. (Like 'me' said.)
You have failed yet again, Mucke!
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-24 21:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pqr9b2$hj2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426102 |
On 10/24/2018 4:07 AM, WM wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 24. Oktober 2018 02:50:37 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 10/23/2018 11:27 AM, WM wrote: >>> Am Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2018 02:52:23 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>> On 10/22/2018 4:35 AM, WM wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> That means aleph_0 numbers have been lost by a sudden jump. They never got to the first position but were forming the tails of the endsegments. >>>> >>>> Incorrect. There is no step in which there is a sudden jump. Each >>>> element get to the first position in a finite number of steps. >>> >>> Infinitely many Elements never get to the first position in a finite number of steps. >> >> No. Each element gets to the first position in a finite number of steps. > > In each of infinitely many endsegments there are aleph_0 elements not at the first position. So they cannot be at the first position after a finite number of steps. Yes they can as there are an infinite number of finite steps. >>> Note that at *every* finite number of steps there are almost all elements behind the first position. >> >> And almost all steps left to execute. > > Correct, But this situation never changes. Agreed. >There are for every selected or identified n almost all natural numbers not selected or identified. This proves that almost all numbers cannot be selected or identified. No. Every natural number can be identified. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 03:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc6fe943-c4a8-4679-ba97-62061429753e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426127 |
Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 04:21:28 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 10/24/2018 4:07 AM, WM wrote: > >>> Note that at *every* finite number of steps there are almost all elements behind the first position. > >> > >> And almost all steps left to execute. > > > > Correct, But this situation never changes. > > Agreed. > > >There are for every selected or identified n almost all natural numbers not selected or identified. This proves that almost all numbers cannot be selected or identified. > > No. Every natural number can be identified. Not if there are aleph_0 natural numbers. Every identifiable number belongs to a finite initial segment. You will never cover more by any choice of number. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 17:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pqtge7$55b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426157 |
On 10/25/2018 5:23 AM, WM wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 04:21:28 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 10/24/2018 4:07 AM, WM wrote: > > >>>>> Note that at *every* finite number of steps there are almost all elements behind the first position. >>>> >>>> And almost all steps left to execute. >>> >>> Correct, But this situation never changes. >> >> Agreed. >> >>> There are for every selected or identified n almost all natural numbers not selected or identified. This proves that almost all numbers cannot be selected or identified. >> >> No. Every natural number can be identified. > > Not if there are aleph_0 natural numbers. Even with aleph_0 natural numbers. > Every identifiable number belongs to a finite initial segment. You will never cover more by any choice of number. There are aleph_0 of these finite initial segments. We don't need more. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web