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 11 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 23 Next page →
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 02:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60b9e5fd-8e56-4d9c-85d5-b678aeb1860a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426496 |
Am Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2018 07:20:23 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum: > No, you are showing that given 2 endsegments, they have an intersection of cardinality aleph-0, which is true but it does not mean your set X exists and has that cardinality. > Learn proof by contradiction: If there is a first endsegment, that has not all its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. Therefore such an endsegment cannot exist. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 23:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9340ce22-c446-4a37-8469-2c6ebe6d47ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426504 |
>Infinitely many is not aleph_0. That would be finished infinity. Just shut up alraedy about "finished infinity", the sets are complete and whole as are. >Learn proof by contradiction: I know it considerably better than you. I have for example shown, with contradiction, that your mysterious set X cannot POSSIBLY exist. >If there is a first endsegment, that has not all its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. Therefore such an endsegment cannot exist. Correct, each one has aleph-0 cardinality when intersected with predecessors but that does not mean your mysterious set X exists.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-01 03:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e730cb19-208c-4480-8a48-deea67b4f2dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426558 |
Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2018 07:29:16 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >If there is a first endsegment, that has not all its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. Therefore such an endsegment cannot exist. > > Correct, each one has aleph-0 cardinality when intersected with predecessors but that does not mean your mysterious set X exists. If there is an endsegment E_n that has not aleph_0 numbers in common with all its successors, then there is a first endsegment that has not all its aleph_0 numbers in common with all its predecessors, namely not with E_n. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-01 03:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b9a87f3-5c25-4930-a843-75f2bef91e4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426563 |
Den torsdag 1 november 2018 kl. 11:05:00 UTC+1 skrev WM: > Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2018 07:29:16 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum: > > > > >If there is a first endsegment, that has not all its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. Therefore such an endsegment cannot exist. > > > > Correct, each one has aleph-0 cardinality when intersected with predecessors but that does not mean your mysterious set X exists. > > If there is an endsegment E_n that has not aleph_0 numbers in common with all its successors, then there is a first endsegment that has not all its aleph_0 numbers in common with all its predecessors, namely not with E_n. > > Regards, WM Again, does not in anyway imply existence of your mysterious set X. How difficult is this for you to understand!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-02 06:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e98b9385-b4b8-47b8-90ff-8db76760952b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426569 |
Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2018 11:29:12 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum: > Den torsdag 1 november 2018 kl. 11:05:00 UTC+1 skrev WM: > > Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2018 07:29:16 UTC+1 schrieb Zelos Malum: > > > > > > > >If there is a first endsegment, that has not all its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. Therefore such an endsegment cannot exist. > > > > > > Correct, each one has aleph-0 cardinality when intersected with predecessors Also when intersected with all successors. > > > > If there is an endsegment E_n that has not aleph_0 numbers in common with all its successors, then there is a first endsegment that has not all its aleph_0 numbers in common with all its predecessors, namely not with E_n. > > Again, does not in anyway imply existence of your mysterious set X. Call the set as you like. There is an infinite subset Y common to all predecessors and all successors, in short: common to all endsegments E_n with finite index n. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43d33cc6-a9b5-4ba7-9a6d-7bd8eb76dfac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426164 |
Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 14:40:44 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > Nope, any two is not the same as "in common for all" Every endsegment contains aleph_0 numbers. Are there numbers among them that are elements of all endsegments, then the intersection of all endsegments is not empty. Are there no numbers among them that are elements of all endsegments then inclusion monotony is violated. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 17:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fwer2gegfw1.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #426163 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:
> Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 13:34:16 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum:
>> >Proof by contradiction: If there is an endsegment E(n) that has not
>> > aleph_0 elements in common with any succeeding endsegment E(n+k),
>> > then there is an endsegment, namely E(n+k), that has aleph_0
>> > elements but not aleph_0 elements in common with a preceding
>> > endsegment, namely E(n), contradicting E(n+k) c E(n). So all
>> > endsegments have aleph_0 elements in common. They are elements of
>> > the subset X.
>>
>> Non-sequitor, this is not proof of your lemma, this is proof of "Any
>> two end segments have an intersection that has the cardinallity of
>> aleph-0"
>
> Any two! That is enough to show that there is no endsegment without
> the infinite set X.
>
>> To show your set exists, you need to show tehre exist an element
>> that is in all end segments.
>
> No. If an infinite set X is in every endsegment (and "any two" proves
> all), then there is certainly one element in all endsegments.
Likewise, no doubt, you conclude:
since, for any two naturals,
there is a number divisible by both,
therefore there is a number divisible by all numbers.
Same "logic" as yours, same unsound inference.
--
Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d55f901f-06f8-4ec1-9a62-217c116972fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426176 |
Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 18:20:07 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill: > WM <wolfgang.mueckenhe > > > Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 13:34:16 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >> >Proof by contradiction: If there is an endsegment E(n) that has not > >> > aleph_0 elements in common with any succeeding endsegment E(n+k), > >> > then there is an endsegment, namely E(n+k), that has aleph_0 > >> > elements but not aleph_0 elements in common with a preceding > >> > endsegment, namely E(n), contradicting E(n+k) c E(n). So all > >> > endsegments have aleph_0 elements in common. They are elements of > >> > the subset X. > >> > >> Non-sequitor, this is not proof of your lemma, this is proof of "Any > >> two end segments have an intersection that has the cardinallity of > >> aleph-0" > > > > Any two! That is enough to show that there is no endsegment without > > the infinite set X. > > > >> To show your set exists, you need to show tehre exist an element > >> that is in all end segments. > > > > No. If an infinite set X is in every endsegment (and "any two" proves > > all), then there is certainly one element in all endsegments. > > Likewise, no doubt, you conclude: > since, for any two naturals, > there is a number divisible by both, > therefore there is a number divisible by all numbers. Nonsense. I conclude that every inclusion monotonic sequence of sets with minimum sets having card aleph_0 has an intersection of card aleph_0. (And I conclude that if every pair of of elements a set of natural numbers has an odd product, then all naturals of that set are odd. But that is off topic.) Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 22:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee02e785-40cc-41f5-8ee0-6413274c5f02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426178 |
>Nonsense. I conclude that every inclusion monotonic sequence of sets with minimum sets having card aleph_0 has an intersection of card aleph_0. It is a nonsense reasoning because yours is nonsense reasoning. >Either every set has the same subset X of card aleph_0, or not every set has has this subset X of card aleph_0. False dichotomy, this mysterious set is not needed to give it cardinality of aleph-0
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-30 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fwe1s87gxb8.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #426178 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes: > Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 18:20:07 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Smaill: >> WM <wolfgang.mueckenhe >> >> > Am Donnerstag, 25. Oktober 2018 13:34:16 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: >> >> >Proof by contradiction: If there is an endsegment E(n) that has not >> >> > aleph_0 elements in common with any succeeding endsegment E(n+k), >> >> > then there is an endsegment, namely E(n+k), that has aleph_0 >> >> > elements but not aleph_0 elements in common with a preceding >> >> > endsegment, namely E(n), contradicting E(n+k) c E(n). So all >> >> > endsegments have aleph_0 elements in common. They are elements of >> >> > the subset X. >> >> >> >> Non-sequitor, this is not proof of your lemma, this is proof of "Any >> >> two end segments have an intersection that has the cardinallity of >> >> aleph-0" >> > >> > Any two! That is enough to show that there is no endsegment without >> > the infinite set X. >> > >> >> To show your set exists, you need to show tehre exist an element >> >> that is in all end segments. >> > >> > No. If an infinite set X is in every endsegment (and "any two" proves >> > all), then there is certainly one element in all endsegments. >> >> Likewise, no doubt, you conclude: >> since, for any two naturals, >> there is a number divisible by both, >> therefore there is a number divisible by all numbers. > > Nonsense. I conclude that every inclusion monotonic sequence of sets > with minimum sets having card aleph_0 has an intersection of card > aleph_0. Yes, you are talking nonsense. The objection here is to the idea that ' "any two" proves all ', just plucked out of thin air. You go on about the pairwise case (where you are right), and then wave your hands. This "logic" is wonky, since it produces nonsense, as you agree. -- Alan Smaill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-30 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <913dfc7f-6f96-4ffb-a895-8dffa0c769d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426430 |
Am Dienstag, 30. Oktober 2018 18:30:07 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Smaill: > The objection here is to the idea that ' "any two" proves all ', > just plucked out of thin air. > > You go on about the pairwise case (where you are right), No, I apply the undisputed fact, that every endsegment has its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors. If there is a first endsegment that has not its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. Therefore there is no such first endsegment. Are you willing to believe that there is a second one nevertheless? Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-30 20:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <prb1k7$99f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426446 |
On 10/30/2018 2:02 PM, WM wrote: > Am Dienstag, 30. Oktober 2018 18:30:07 UTC+1 schrieb Alan Smaill: > > >> The objection here is to the idea that ' "any two" proves all ', >> just plucked out of thin air. >> >> You go on about the pairwise case (where you are right), > > No, I apply the undisputed fact, that every endsegment has its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors. If there is a first endsegment that has not its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. There is no first endsegment that doesn't have aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors. Inclusion monotony is violated nonetheless. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 02:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8ebfe31-3b55-4090-abb9-b88204b6e42a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426472 |
Am Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2018 02:47:57 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 10/30/2018 2:02 PM, WM wrote: > > I apply the undisputed fact, that every endsegment has its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors. If there is a first endsegment that has not its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. > > There is no first endsegment that doesn't have aleph_0 elements in > common with all its predecessors. "all its aleph_0 elements", to be precise. > Inclusion monotony is violated > nonetheless. E(n+1) c E(n) is violated? How that? Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-31 17:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <prdbph$k19$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426502 |
On 10/31/2018 4:42 AM, WM wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2018 02:47:57 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 10/30/2018 2:02 PM, WM wrote: > >>> I apply the undisputed fact, that every endsegment has its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors. If there is a first endsegment that has not its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. >> >> There is no first endsegment that doesn't have aleph_0 elements in >> common with all its predecessors. > > "all its aleph_0 elements", to be precise. > >> Inclusion monotony is violated >> nonetheless. > > E(n+1) c E(n) is violated? How that? That's just the premise for inclusion monotony. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-01 03:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d52d8693-f6e6-42c9-9cd2-938aa4e1c7a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426531 |
Am Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2018 23:53:45 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 10/31/2018 4:42 AM, WM wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2018 02:47:57 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > >> On 10/30/2018 2:02 PM, WM wrote: > > > >>> I apply the undisputed fact, that every endsegment has its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors. If there is a first endsegment that has not its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. > >> > >> There is no first endsegment that doesn't have aleph_0 elements in > >> common with all its predecessors. > > > > "all its aleph_0 elements", to be precise. > > > >> Inclusion monotony is violated > >> nonetheless. > > > > E(n+1) c E(n) is violated? How that? > > That's just the premise for inclusion monotony. It is its definition. It shows that every endsegment has *all* its elements in common with all its predecessors. If there is an endsegment E_n that has not aleph_0 numbers in common with all its successors, then there is a first endsegment that has not all its aleph_0 numbers in common with all its predecessors, namely not with E_n. Then this definition is violated. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-01 17:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <prfue3$co4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426566 |
On 11/1/2018 5:11 AM, WM wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2018 23:53:45 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 10/31/2018 4:42 AM, WM wrote: >>> Am Mittwoch, 31. Oktober 2018 02:47:57 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>> On 10/30/2018 2:02 PM, WM wrote: >>> >>>>> I apply the undisputed fact, that every endsegment has its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors. If there is a first endsegment that has not its aleph_0 elements in common with all its predecessors, then inclusion monotony is violated. >>>> >>>> There is no first endsegment that doesn't have aleph_0 elements in >>>> common with all its predecessors. >>> >>> "all its aleph_0 elements", to be precise. >>> >>>> Inclusion monotony is violated >>>> nonetheless. >>> >>> E(n+1) c E(n) is violated? How that? >> >> That's just the premise for inclusion monotony. > > It is its definition. Don't lie. It's not it's definition. You couldn't reach the conclusions you do if it was as you establish E(n+1) c E(n) and then invoke inclusion monotony. >It shows that every endsegment has *all* its elements in common with all its predecessors. A fact not in dispute. What it doesn't show (and what you keep using it for) is that there are any elements common to all successors. > If there is an endsegment E_n that has not aleph_0 numbers in common with all its successors, then there is a first endsegment that has not all its aleph_0 numbers in common with all its predecessors, namely not with E_n. Then this definition is violated. For any n in N, E_n has aleph_0 numbers in common with all its predecessors and no elements in common with all its successors. The above statement is false, so inclusion monotony is violated even though the part that you called a definition above is not. Quite clearly, you were lying when you called the part above a definition. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-02 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8922dc6-ca8f-4381-b0c2-68fe82ded2ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426607 |
Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2018 23:24:09 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 11/1/2018 5:11 AM, WM wrote: > >It shows that every endsegment has *all* its elements in common with all its predecessors. > > A fact not in dispute. What it doesn't show (and what you keep using it > for) is that there are any elements common to all successors. > > > If there is an endsegment E_n that has not aleph_0 numbers in common with all its successors, then there is a first endsegment that has not all its aleph_0 numbers in common with all its predecessors, namely not with E_n. Then this definition is violated. > > For any n in N, E_n has aleph_0 numbers in common with all its > predecessors Right! > and no elements in common with all its successors. That is a false claim. Further it is counterfactual. In order to see this, unless you are blind, find a successor with aleph_0 elements but not all of them in all its predecessors. > The > above statement is false, so inclusion monotony is violated even though > the part that you called a definition above is not. E(n+k) c E(n) is the definition of inclusion monotony and shows that all successors have only elements that are in all their predecessors. Further all endsegments have aleph_0 elements. This proves that there is a set Y being a subset of all endsegments. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-02 22:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <prj5ku$d4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426627 |
On 11/2/2018 8:00 AM, WM wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2018 23:24:09 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 11/1/2018 5:11 AM, WM wrote: > >>> It shows that every endsegment has *all* its elements in common with all its predecessors. >> >> A fact not in dispute. What it doesn't show (and what you keep using it >> for) is that there are any elements common to all successors. >> >>> If there is an endsegment E_n that has not aleph_0 numbers in common with all its successors, then there is a first endsegment that has not all its aleph_0 numbers in common with all its predecessors, namely not with E_n. Then this definition is violated. >> >> For any n in N, E_n has aleph_0 numbers in common with all its >> predecessors > > Right! > >> and no elements in common with all its successors. > > That is a false claim. Nope. It's easily proven. You've seen the proofs before. > Further it is counterfactual. In order to see this, unless you are blind, find a successor with aleph_0 elements but not all of them in all its predecessors. What a crazy request. You're trying to show that it has an element in common with all it's successors, not that it has some elements not in a predecessor. >> The >> above statement is false, so inclusion monotony is violated even though >> the part that you called a definition above is not. > > E(n+k) c E(n) is the definition of inclusion monotony. Don't lie. That's its premise. > and shows that all successors have only elements that are in all their predecessors. Further all endsegments have aleph_0 elements. This proves that there is a set Y being a subset of all endsegments. Your last sentence does not follow from E(n+k) c E(n), which is why I know you are lying about the definition of inclusion monotony. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 03:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2859bd1-c2c4-498e-9754-2f7009b641c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426653 |
Am Samstag, 3. November 2018 04:45:41 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 11/2/2018 8:00 AM, WM wrote: > > Further it is counterfactual. In order to see this, unless you are blind, find a successor with aleph_0 elements but not all of them in all its predecessors. > > What a crazy request. It is what you claim! Otgerwise all aleph_0 elements are in all predecessors. > You're trying to show that it has an element in > common with all it's successors, No, I show that there is a subset of aleph_0 elements in all endsegments. > not that it has some elements not in a > predecessor. That would be the consequence of your claim. > >> The > >> above statement is false, so inclusion monotony is violated even though > >> the part that you called a definition above is not. > > > > E(n+k) c E(n) is the definition of inclusion monotony. > > Don't lie. That's its premise. Of course. If for all n, k: E(n+k) c E(n), then the sequence is called inclusion-monotonic. > > > and shows that all successors have only elements that are in all their predecessors. Further all endsegments have aleph_0 elements. This proves that there is a set Y being a subset of all endsegments. > > Your last sentence does not follow from E(n+k) c E(n) It follows from E(n+k) c E(n) and the fact that every endsegment has aleph_0 elements. To be able to find a first endsegment having aleph_0 elements but not all in common with all its predecessors is your claim. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 23:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <prlrjl$eap$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426658 |
On 11/3/2018 5:03 AM, WM wrote: > Am Samstag, 3. November 2018 04:45:41 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 11/2/2018 8:00 AM, WM wrote: >>> Further it is counterfactual. In order to see this, unless you are blind, find a successor with aleph_0 elements but not all of them in all its predecessors. >> >> What a crazy request. > > It is what you claim! Otgerwise all aleph_0 elements are in all predecessors. Don't lie. I've made no such claim. I've even repeatedly agreed that for any E_n, all its elements are in all its predecessors. However, what you carefully and dishonestly snipped was where I denied that there are any elements in E_n that are in all its successors. Leading you to insanely ask for an element that isn't in its predecessors. >> You're trying to show that it has an element in >> common with all it's successors, > > No, I show that there is a subset of aleph_0 elements in all endsegments. Don't lie. In order for there to be a subset of aleph_0 elements in all endsegments, there would have be an element in E_n that it has in common with all its successors. >> not that it has some elements not in a >> predecessor. > > That would be the consequence of your claim. Don't lie. That's not a consequence of my claim. >>> and shows that all successors have only elements that are in all their predecessors. Further all endsegments have aleph_0 elements. This proves that there is a set Y being a subset of all endsegments. >> >> Your last sentence does not follow from E(n+k) c E(n) > > It follows from E(n+k) c E(n) and the fact that every endsegment has aleph_0 elements. Don't lie. You've never validly shown that it follows. > To be able to find a first endsegment having aleph_0 elements but not all in common with all its predecessors is your claim. Don't lie. I've never made such a claim. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web