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 2 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 23 Next page →
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e4f7b28-9efb-460b-95a5-a997b1818102@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422707 |
Am Freitag, 31. August 2018 20:29:44 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Christensen: > > then simplify the problem, as I stated it initially: The first of 100 finite segments within |N. > > > > I don't think you will find that "the first of 100 finite segments within |N" has any standard meaning set theory. Then this language is too primitive. In mathematics it is possible to define an initial segment of |N and to define 100 segments of same size. (The remainder is irrelevant for my proof.) Regards, WM Try again. Or admit to yourself that math really isn't your thing, cut your losses and move on with your life, 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 | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 11:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b8ba948$0$15505$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #422694 |
Doktor Frankenheim wrote: > Am Freitag, 31. August 2018 16:41:39 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Christensen: > > >>> To refute it, you need only a single counter example. >>> >> >> How does one refute meaningless gibberish? > > You mean something like finished infinity? > > Try again and again. Simplify your arguments until they are > so simple that even the dumbest readers must understand them. > In short, do what I have been doing for 15 years. Try again and again. Confuse your arguments until they are not even parsing any more and that the average student prefer to fake acknowledgement than arguing in order to pass the exam and give up on all that nonsense. In short do what Herr Mueckenheim, from Hochschule Augsburg, has been doing for 15 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 22:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf24534a-29a7-4246-8497-387604027fda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422438 |
>Yesterday in MSE there was also a person of your opinion. There is a simple cure: show a number that does not belong to the first segment. Fail. And you need to show what the last natural number is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 00:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b2ca68c-d3bf-4a01-aaab-919ba6c21c5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422483 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 07:44:38 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >Yesterday in MSE there was also a person of your opinion. There is a simple cure: show a number that does not belong to the first segment. Fail. > > And you need to show what the last natural number is. I said that there are at least 99 segments following upon that one that you can choose a number from. I did not exclude that there are many more. Regards, wM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 16:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm96ap$2vqe$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #422495 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 07:44:38 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: >> >Yesterday in MSE there was also a person of your opinion. There is a >> >simple cure: show a number that does not belong to the first segment. >> >Fail. >> And you need to show what the last natural number is. > I said that there are at least 99 segments following upon that one that > you can choose a number from. I did not exclude that there are many > more. Loose language, very loose. The fact is that "you" can chose a number from any of these 99 segments, and many more besides. This is nothing more than the childish game where boy2 can "think of a bigger number" than boy1 by getting boy1 to specify his number first. You're sounding a bit like Archimedes Plutonium with his "infinity borderline" here. > Regards, wM -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 09:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <530c2488-92ad-4302-8a95-e7f9cf315154@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422564 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 18:34:43 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > > I said that there are at least 99 segments following upon that one that > > you can choose a number from. I did not exclude that there are many > > more. > > The fact is that "you" can chose a number > from any of these 99 segments, and many more besides. Don't claim the impossible - try it! > This is nothing > more than the childish game where boy2 can "think of a bigger number" > than boy1 by getting boy1 to specify his number first. No, you have not yet understood. Perhaps you will be unable at all. Here boy1 and boy2 and all boys and girls are caught within the first of many intervals. With and without specifying. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 17:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3cb25c69-9486-4285-8814-c843e36f9f54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422495 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 09:20:01 UTC+2 schrieb WM:
> I said that there are at least 99 segments following upon that one that you
> can choose a number from. I did not exclude that there are many more.
For heavens same, man, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING about?
What is a "segment" here? A finite set of the form {n e IN : l <= n < u} for some numbers l,u e IN, or may it even be infinite, say, {n e IN : l <= n} for some number l e IN?
In your case, it seems to me, you are talking about consecutive (back to back) _finite_ "segments":
{1, 2, ..., k}
{k+1, n+2, ..., k+k}
{2k+1, 2k+2, ..., 2k+k}
:
where k e IN and your "chosen" number n is < k.
Yeah, "there are at least 99 segments following upon" {1, 2, ..., k}, actually there are infinitely many "segments" "following" the "first one".
On the other hand, each and every natural number n is contained in ONE of these "segements":
An e IN: Em e (N u {0}): n e {i e IN : mk+1 <= i <= (m+1)k} .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 21:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5b8707bc$0$15480$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #422415 |
Doktor Frankenheim wrote: > If we refer to a natural number n, then 100n is also a natural number. > Hence n belongs to the first segment of the complete set that is followed > by at least 99 segments of same size. Alas the same is true for 100n > and any larger multiple of n. So what, you cannot conclude anything from this, especially not: > Therefore we will not be able to refer > to any natural number beyond the first segment of the complete set. You just refer to "a natural number n" in your own first sentence, you had no problem to do so, despite the completely void assertion you made later on... > Of course instead of 100 every larger factor can be used. > Therefore all natural numbers that can be considered belong > to a vanishing initial segment of the complete set. Vanishing? You didn't even mention any kind of specific initial segment, and there is nothing vanishing by the way. You are not even trying to obfuscate your nonsense, Herr Mueckenheim, just putting words one after the other ones pretending that it makes sense. > The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this > fact? If so, how? Which fact? What would have to be circumvented? You are drunk today, Herr Mueckenheim, again? > If not, why is it called universal? Because it is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 23:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46f7a5b4-be41-4b57-b3ae-9b4570758921@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422441 |
Am Mittwoch, 29. August 2018 22:53:22 UTC+2 schrieb Python: > > If we refer to a natural number n, then 100n is also a natural number. > > Hence n belongs to the first segment of the complete set that is followed > > by at least 99 segments of same size. Alas the same is true for 100n > > and any larger multiple of n. > > So what, you cannot conclude anything from this, especially not: > > > Therefore we will not be able to refer > to any natural number beyond the first segment of the complete set. > > You just refer to "a natural number n" in your own first sentence, Yes, but it is from the first interval or in short, the first percent. > you > had no problem to do so Why should I? > > Of course instead of 100 every larger factor can be used. > > Therefore all natural numbers that can be considered belong > > to a vanishing initial segment of the complete set. > > Vanishing? You didn't even mention any kind of specific initial > segment, The reader is invited to think himself. If the factor is chosen as 10^10^10^10 instead of 100, then this shows that there the first interval is less than 1 percent. Since the factor can be chosen arbitrarily large, the interval becomes arbitrarily small, i.e., rather vanishing. > > The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this > > fact? If so, how? > > Which fact? That one that you have not yet comprehended. > > If not, why is it called universal? > > Because it is. Try to choose a natural number beyond the first interval. Fail. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d2fbe97-a29a-4e17-9a65-b1141a9dfadb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422487 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 08:48:25 UTC+2 schrieb WM:
> the first interval is less than 1 percent ...
It's NONSENSE to talk about "%" in in this context, Mückenheim.
We might consider CERTAIN _infinite_ subsets of the set IN, say the set
G = {2*n | n e IN}
of even numbers. It's tempting to claim that G contains 50% of all natural numbers. On the other hand, it's well known that
card(G) = card(IN) ,
their cardinality is the same.
So, given an arbitrary subset A of the natural numbers, HOW do you DETERMINE or CALCULATE the "percentage" of natural numbers in A?
If the notion of % WOULD make sense in this context (which it does not) one thing should be clear:
if A = IN then A would contain 100% of the natural numbers.
But if A = {1}, or A = {1, 2}, ... etc.
A contains <how many?>% of the natural numbers.
I guess the answer should be 0. Not that helpful, I'd say. After all, No set A is EMPTY here.
If A = the set of primes. How many % of the natural numbers does A contain?
Etc. etc.
Plaese don't use undefined and/or nonsensical terms/notions in your claim, Mückenheim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pm71rg$mjj$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #422415 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > If we refer to a natural number n, then 100n is also a natural number. > Hence n belongs to the first segment of the complete set that is > followed by at least 99 segments of same size. That's no specification of a set. I think you meant to specify "the set of natural numbers". In which case, it's not clear what you mean by "the complete set", since the natural numbers form an incomplete (German "unendlich", without end) set. > Alas the same is true for 100n and any larger multiple of n. Therefore > we will not be able to refer to any natural number beyond the first > segment of the complete set. There is no complete set. You are making arguments suitable for finite sets, but applying them invalidly to infinite sets. But the first segment of the set of natural numbers as (very) loosely defined by you coincides with the entire set, since your n can be chosen as big as necessary to refer to any natural number. > Of course instead of 100 every larger factor can be used. Therefore all > natural numbers that can be considered belong to a vanishing initial > segment of the complete set. In what sense does this initial segment vanish? Vanishing is a kind of transformation, but the set of natural numbers simply is, always has been, and always will be. > The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If > so, how? If not, why is it called universal? What does circumvent mean here? That word only makes sense in the context of some restriction. It is not clear what this restriction is. > Regards, WM -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 00:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31f7d72e-554f-44b2-aa43-bc02c6a2b1ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422445 |
Am Mittwoch, 29. August 2018 23:05:59 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote: > > If we refer to a natural number n, then 100n is also a natural number. > > Hence n belongs to the first segment of the complete set that is > > followed by at least 99 segments of same size. > > That's no specification of a set. I think you meant to specify "the set > of natural numbers". In which case, it's not clear what you mean by "the > complete set", since the natural numbers form an incomplete (German > "unendlich", without end) set. Das Vollendetunendliche findet sich allerdings in gewissem Sinne in den Zahlen ...; sie sind Zeichen für gewisse Modi des Vollendetunendlichen und weil das Vollendetunendliche in verschiedenen, von einander mit der äussersten Schärfe durch den sogenannten 'endlichen, menschlichen Verstand' unterscheidbaren Modificationen auftreten kann (Cantor). > > Alas the same is true for 100n and any larger multiple of n. Therefore > > we will not be able to refer to any natural number beyond the first > > segment of the complete set. > > There is no complete set. Correct. Set theory is nonsense. > You are making arguments suitable for finite > sets, but applying them invalidly to infinite sets. Correct, but that's not me but Cantor and his matheologians. Without completeness no alephs and no diagonal argument are possible. > But the first segment of the set of natural numbers as (very) loosely > defined by you coincides with the entire set, since your n can be chosen > as big as necessary to refer to any natural number. That is wrong. Try it. I will show that your n is from the first ppb. > > In what sense does this initial segment vanish? In the sense that I can show that your n is from the first of 10^10^10^10....^10 segments. > > > The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If > > so, how? If not, why is it called universal? > > What does circumvent mean here? It is simple rhetoric. It is not possible to circumvent the restriction that your and every choice is from the first percent. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 00:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7f4e0bd-f0e9-4154-b8fa-a0a4465ca095@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422488 |
>Correct. Set theory is nonsense. Set theory works just fine, you are just too stupid to understand it. >You need not "go through". Jump wherever you like. Try to select a natural number not belonging to the first percent. Fail. There is no % here because talkign about percent with sets is non-sense. It is an undefined term and predicate in set theory. >I said that there are at least 99 segments following upon that one that you can choose a number from. I did not exclude that there are many more. You still need to provide the last one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 01:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea42b49a-054e-489b-a557-8eab9f0092e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422498 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 09:55:51 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >You need not "go through". Jump wherever you like. Try to select a natural number not belonging to the first percent. Fail. > > There is no % here because talkign about percent with sets is non-sense. It is a short version of the following: If you select a natural number, then it is from the first finite segment that is followed by at least 99 segments of equal size from which you never can select a natural number. > >I said that there are at least 99 segments following upon that one that you can choose a number from. I did not exclude that there are many more. > > You still need to provide the last one. Why? I did not say that there are only 99 inaccessible intervals. In fact there are infinitely many. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <dvhaus.dresden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 17:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <acacfd50-3dda-4ecc-aea3-820761a2f635@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422498 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 09:55:51 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > > > > Try to select a natural number not belonging to the first percent. [WM] > > > There is no % here because talking about percent with [infinte --me] sets > is non-sense. It is an undefined term and predicate [in this context --me] Indeed. But he's to dumb to get that, it seems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 18:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pm7a7b$hdg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #422415 |
On 8/29/2018 7:07 AM, WM wrote: > If we refer to a natural number n, then 100n is also a natural number. Hence n belongs to the first segment of the complete set that is followed by at least 99 segments of same size. Alas the same is true for 100n and any larger multiple of n. Therefore we will not be able to refer to any natural number beyond the first segment of the complete set. > > Of course instead of 100 every larger factor can be used. Therefore all natural numbers that can be considered belong to a vanishing initial segment of the complete set. > > The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? Of course it can. It does it by not depend on whether or not it's in the "first segment". It's called universal because is true only if the property applies to everything it ranges over. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-30 00:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f08907b9-986d-4f71-b6c3-14eaac574b95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422455 |
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 01:28:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 8/29/2018 7:07 AM, WM wrote: > > The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? > > Of course it can. It does it by not depend on whether or not it's in the > "first segment". It's called universal because is true only if the > property applies to everything it ranges over. Then it is wrong. Try it! I will show that you failed. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 15:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pmc749$is7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #422492 |
On 8/30/2018 2:14 AM, WM wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 01:28:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 8/29/2018 7:07 AM, WM wrote: > > >>> The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? >> >> Of course it can. It does it by not depend on whether or not it's in the >> "first segment". It's called universal because is true only if the >> property applies to everything it ranges over. > > Then it is wrong. Try it! I will show that you failed. Try what? Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 05:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fae30a56-503a-4910-8aec-fab59c80334a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422716 |
Am Freitag, 31. August 2018 22:06:39 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 8/30/2018 2:14 AM, WM wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 01:28:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > >> On 8/29/2018 7:07 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > >>> The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? > >> > >> Of course it can. It does it by not depend on whether or not it's in the > >> "first segment". It's called universal because is true only if the > >> property applies to everything it ranges over. > > > > Then it is wrong. Try it! I will show that you failed. > > Try what? > Try to refer to a natural number that does not belongs to the first of 100 finite intervals of equal size in |N. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 19:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pmfbru$3qs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #422757 |
On 9/1/2018 7:25 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > Am Freitag, 31. August 2018 22:06:39 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 8/30/2018 2:14 AM, WM wrote: >>> Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2018 01:28:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>> On 8/29/2018 7:07 AM, WM wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> The question is: Can universal quantification circumvent this fact? If so, how? If not, why is it called universal? >>>> >>>> Of course it can. It does it by not depend on whether or not it's in the >>>> "first segment". It's called universal because is true only if the >>>> property applies to everything it ranges over. >>> >>> Then it is wrong. Try it! I will show that you failed. >> >> Try what? >> > Try to refer to a natural number that does not belongs to the first of 100 finite intervals of equal size in |N. How would the failure show that universal generalization is wrong? It doesn't depend on whether or not something belongs to the "first of 100 finite intervals of equal size in |N". Anyway, let n be the size of your finite interval. 100n+1 is the smallest natural number that isn't in the first 100 finite intervals of equal size. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web