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 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 03:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12cfaa13-ea1b-46e6-b761-d10c48bc29dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #426655 |
Am Samstag, 3. November 2018 04:48:43 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 11/2/2018 7:28 AM, WM wrote: > > There is no least upper bound. > > To you then, there must be a line that is either longer than aleph_0 or > an upper bound that is less than aleph_0. Which is it? Neither. It is a finite but unbounded set of lines followed by an infinite set of dark matter. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 23:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <prlrnd$eap$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #426656 |
On 11/3/2018 5:01 AM, WM wrote: > Am Samstag, 3. November 2018 04:48:43 UTC+1 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 11/2/2018 7:28 AM, WM wrote: > >>> There is no least upper bound. >> >> To you then, there must be a line that is either longer than aleph_0 or >> an upper bound that is less than aleph_0. Which is it? > > Neither. It is a finite but unbounded set of lines followed by an infinite set of dark matter. > Lay off the drugs man. Dark matter isn't part of mathematics. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-23 23:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7a41374-7180-4ef3-8cc4-3a1b8df645ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423980 |
>Wrong. Identify any natural number of your choice. I will show that your number is of the first half of an interval by defining the second half. There is no second half cause your set is all of |N >I am simply proving that you cannot refer to every natural number. So far you ahve only managed to prove you cannot understand logicv >Whatever. Fact is: You cannot refer to every natural number contrary to the claim of ste theory that every natural number can be put in a definable bijection with an element of another countable set. You can, you being dishoenst does not disprove anything. >Completed or actual infinity means that there is a set completing the ordered set of smaller sets like omega for the natural numbers and omega_1 for the second number class. Potential infinity has no completing set. An example is the non-existing set of all sets. And that set exists |N >Mechanized forms of logic are important only for those who cannot think. THen you should really use it cause you cannot think >It is a predicate that everybody understands who uses mathematics to determine properties of individual numbers. If you don't understand restrict yourself to reading and learning. Learn that for you to say somethign has a property within a theory of mathematics, you must be able to put it into a predicate of the langauge at hand. If you cannot, it is not valid in that theory. So Referable must be turned into a set theoretical or PA predicate. If you cannot get this, restrict yourself to being an engineer. >That is an unfounded and wrong assertion. Multiply every number of your asserted |N by 2. Get the second half interval. Incorrect, you get 2|N c |N Try again >Here we use ZFC or any theory based on Cantor's theorem where |P(S)| > |S|. There the hierarchy of sets is potentially infinite. you aren't because you cannot even make your "referable" into a ZFC predicate. >Impossible. The first interval is finite. (If you don't agree find a natural number that does not belong to a finite interval.) We use all n of the first interval and multiply them by 2. So some 2n must lie outside. Incorrect, if it is finite, then it has a maximal element, which I add 1 to and then am outside. Saying it is still isnide first interval means yoru interval is infinite. That is an impossibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-24 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2b991d5-f3fd-4aeb-a729-93c09689746c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424180 |
Am Montag, 24. September 2018 08:39:47 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >Wrong. Identify any natural number of your choice. I will show that your number is of the first half of an interval by defining the second half. > > There is no second half cause your set is all of |N My set of intervals is finite. For every natural number that you name I can show that it belongs to the first of 100 finite intervals. > > >I am simply proving that you cannot refer to every natural number. > > So far you ahve only managed to prove you cannot understand logic. Your logic claims universality. If you try, then you will always have referred to a finite number of naturals whereas an infinite number is waiting. This shows to everybody but "logicians" that your claim is wrong. > > >Whatever. Fact is: You cannot refer to every natural number contrary to the claim of set theory that every natural number can be put in a definable bijection with an element of another countable set. > > You can, Obviously not. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 03:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6820580c-adb4-43be-9fcf-4b62ae00bd61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424199 |
>My set of intervals is finite. For every natural number that you name I can show that it belongs to the first of 100 finite intervals. But your initial interval is therefore nto finite cause it contains all natural numbers. >Your logic claims universality. If you try, then you will always have referred to a finite number of naturals whereas an infinite number is waiting. This shows to everybody but "logicians" that your claim is wrong. Non-sequitor, just cause tehre are infinitely many natural numbers after each natural number does that not invalidate universal quantifier or anything. That does not follow. >Obviously not. Obviously you can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Angus MacAusland <horand.gassmann@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 03:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e47dbff-5760-4d7b-8215-bff5abb3c33d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424262 |
On Tuesday, 25 September 2018 07:14:06 UTC-3, Zelos Malum wrote: > >My set of intervals is finite. For every natural number that you name I can show that it belongs to the first of 100 finite intervals. > > But your initial interval is therefore nto finite cause it contains all natural numbers. > > >Your logic claims universality. If you try, then you will always have referred to a finite number of naturals whereas an infinite number is waiting. This shows to everybody but "logicians" that your claim is wrong. > > Non-sequitor, just cause tehre are infinitely many natural numbers after each natural number does that not invalidate universal quantifier or anything. That does not follow. > > >Obviously not. > > Obviously you can. Mucke has proven for at least the last twelve years that he cannot. It is equally clear that he has incurable quantifier dyslexia. To him "To every natural number there exists a larger one" is synonymous with "There exists a natural number larger than all others".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e147e35f-f148-49b6-9501-fc801660f9cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424262 |
Am Dienstag, 25. September 2018 12:14:06 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum:
> >My set of intervals is finite. For every natural number that you name I can show that it belongs to the first of 100 finite intervals.
>
> But your initial interval is therefore nto finite cause it contains all natural numbers.
No, it contains only few. Try to refer to numbers. Whatever you do, the remainder |{n+1, n+2, n+3, ...}| has cardinality aleph_0.
>
> >Your logic claims universality. If you try, then you will always have referred to a finite number of naturals whereas an infinite number is waiting. This shows to everybody but "logicians" that your claim is wrong.
>
> Non-sequitor, just cause tehre are infinitely many natural numbers after each natural number does that not invalidate universal quantifier or anything. That does not follow.
If someone claims he can do all numbers, but at every attempt infinitely many numbers have not been done, then he is dishonest or stupid.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 06:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb527e8d-41b0-46f6-8f47-ddbdbe70adc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424269 |
>No, it contains only few. Try to refer to numbers. Whatever you do, the remainder |{n+1, n+2, n+3, ...}| has cardinality aleph_0.
Then i refer to the first one right after the interval and you lose.
>If someone claims he can do all numbers, but at every attempt infinitely many numbers have not been done, then he is dishonest or stupid.
Not at all, because that does not logically follow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-25 10:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e89dcd6-6c7a-4442-9cf5-e6aa95243e02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424273 |
Am Dienstag, 25. September 2018 15:25:20 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum:
> >No, it contains only few. Try to refer to numbers. Whatever you do, the remainder |{n+1, n+2, n+3, ...}| has cardinality aleph_0.
>
> Then i refer to the first one right after the interval and
the remainder has cardinality aleph_0.
> >If someone claims he can do all numbers, but at every attempt infinitely many numbers have not been done, then he is dishonest or stupid.
>
> Not at all, because that does not logically follow.
It follows logically. It follows even more: Every "logician" who, like you here, does not understand this simple argument or deliberately lies about it supports the impression that logicians form the dumbest occupational group ever seen in human civilisation.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-26 22:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f3ff1d7-07e9-4894-b18f-c281352a85af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424287 |
>the remainder has cardinality aleph_0. And? It is irrelevant. >It follows logically. It follows even more: Every "logician" who, like you here, does not understand this simple argument or deliberately lies about it supports the impression that logicians form the dumbest occupational group ever seen in human civilisation. No it doesn't. just because for any given natural number, there are infinitely many more after, it does nto imply that they are inaccesible or impossible to refer to all of them. No one but you are delibertly lying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 06:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <072a007b-f44b-4a18-9a98-77ef29d38455@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424362 |
Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2018 07:21:44 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >the remainder has cardinality aleph_0. > > And? It is irrelevant. It is relevant with respect to the question whether the set of all natural numbers that can be referred to has cardinality aleph_0. Two consecutive sets of cardinality aleph_0 are inpmossible in |N. > > >It follows logically. It follows even more: Every "logician" who, like you here, does not understand this simple argument or deliberately lies about it supports the impression that logicians form the dumbest occupational group ever seen in human civilisation. > > No it doesn't. just because for any given natural number, there are infinitely many more after, it does nto imply that they are inaccesible or impossible to refer to all of them. > If you always fail to refer to most of them, it is incorrect to claim that you can refer to all of them. REgards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10a36e2a-88c6-4bbc-ade1-f3d77d7bbac8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424376 |
Why not? You can define an order relation in |N
with the order type omega+omega. Its rather
trivial for example:
/ n =< m n odd and m odd
|
| true n odd and m even
n lq m : <=> <
| false n even and m odd
|
\ n =< m n even and m even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_arithmetic#Addition
Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2018 15:28:17 UTC+2 schrieb transf...@gmail.com:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2018 07:21:44 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum:
> > >the remainder has cardinality aleph_0.
> >
> > And? It is irrelevant.
>
> It is relevant with respect to the question whether the set of all natural numbers that can be referred to has cardinality aleph_0. Two consecutive sets of cardinality aleph_0 are inpmossible in |N.
> >
> > >It follows logically. It follows even more: Every "logician" who, like you here, does not understand this simple argument or deliberately lies about it supports the impression that logicians form the dumbest occupational group ever seen in human civilisation.
> >
> > No it doesn't. just because for any given natural number, there are infinitely many more after, it does nto imply that they are inaccesible or impossible to refer to all of them.
> >
> If you always fail to refer to most of them, it is incorrect to claim that you can refer to all of them.
>
> REgards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-27 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33e0d549-3f7f-4d67-be3e-4a991562d083@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424377 |
Not your students I guess? The UvA team ‘Mückenheim Transfinity’ has won the 14th edition of the National Interuniversity Mathematical Olympiad (LIMO). UvA students win Interuniversity Olympiad 2018 http://kdvi.uva.nl/content/news/2018/05/uva-wins-limo-2018.html Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2018 18:21:31 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > Why not? You can define an order relation in |N > with the order type omega+omega. Its rather > trivial for example: > > / n =< m n odd and m odd > | > | true n odd and m even > n lq m : <=> < > | false n even and m odd > | > \ n =< m n even and m even > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_arithmetic#Addition > > Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2018 15:28:17 UTC+2 schrieb transf...@gmail.com: > > Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2018 07:21:44 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > > > >the remainder has cardinality aleph_0. > > > > > > And? It is irrelevant. > > > > It is relevant with respect to the question whether the set of all natural numbers that can be referred to has cardinality aleph_0. Two consecutive sets of cardinality aleph_0 are inpmossible in |N. > > > > > > >It follows logically. It follows even more: Every "logician" who, like you here, does not understand this simple argument or deliberately lies about it supports the impression that logicians form the dumbest occupational group ever seen in human civilisation. > > > > > > No it doesn't. just because for any given natural number, there are infinitely many more after, it does nto imply that they are inaccesible or impossible to refer to all of them. > > > > > If you always fail to refer to most of them, it is incorrect to claim that you can refer to all of them. > > > > REgards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 03:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be570b68-5ae3-4119-8452-5a1ae70f43f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424380 |
Am Donnerstag, 27. September 2018 19:45:08 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > Not your students I guess? Unfortunately not. > > The UvA team ‘Mückenheim Transfinity’ has won > the 14th edition of the National Interuniversity > Mathematical Olympiad (LIMO). > > UvA students win Interuniversity Olympiad 2018 > http://kdvi.uva.nl/content/news/2018/05/uva-wins-limo-2018.html Congratulations! Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 22:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b56aadaa-f278-4538-9e73-f14006cabe3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422895 |
>Being no members of |N for which P(n) is false means all members being accessible. And just that is contradicted. You haven't contradicted it at all. >100n is also in the first interval. if [1,n] is the first interval, then by definition, 100n is NOT in the first itnerval. >"In spite of significant difference between the notions of the potential and actual infinite, where the former is a variable finite magnitude, growing above all limits, the latter a constant quantity fixed in itself but beyond all finite magnitudes, it happens deplorably often that the one is confused with the other." Whoc ares? >It cannot contain every natural number but only every accessible number. Try it to find a larger number. I will multiply it by 100 and show that you have failed. Which means it contains all natural numbers because if it fails no matter the n, then all are contained in your initial interval. >Try to exhaust it. I am waiting! Exhaust what? You have definitionalyl made your own "first itnerval" being the natural numbers. >I can easily prove that the interval that you can use is not |N. "Can use"? You have defined it such that for all n e |N, it is in the initial interval, therefore it is |N How is it you do not understand this? By definition, as |N and your initial interval contains the same elements, they are the same set!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 03:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <087fda30-9e3e-4f79-b003-ed55ccc59636@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422925 |
Am Dienstag, 4. September 2018 07:28:43 UTC+2 schrieb Zelos Malum: > >"In spite of significant difference between the notions of the potential and actual infinite, where the former is a variable finite magnitude, growing above all limits, the latter a constant quantity fixed in itself but beyond all finite magnitudes, it happens deplorably often that the one is confused with the other." > > Whoc ares? Every real mathematician. Everybody who understands that your "simultaneous actions" are nothing but a confession that set theory is not mathematics. > > >It cannot contain every natural number but only every accessible number. Try it to find a larger number. I will multiply it by 100 and show that you have failed. > > Which means it contains all natural numbers because if it fails no matter the n, then all are contained in your initial interval. However you may define the initil interval. Even less than 1 % of this interval is accessible so that you can refer to a natural number there. Proof: Refer to any number n of your choice. I will show you that 100n and 10000n are natural numbers. > > >Try to exhaust it. I am waiting! > > Exhaust what? You have definitionalyl made your own "first itnerval" being the natural numbers. And you cannot refer to more than 1 % of these numbers. > > >I can easily prove that the interval that you can use is not |N. > > "Can use"? You have defined it such that for all n e |N, it is in the initial interval, therefore it is |N. I have proved that "for all n e |N" is nonsense. > > How is it you do not understand this? By definition, as |N and your initial interval contains the same elements, they are the same set! Only if |N is finite, i.e, potentially infinite. Nevertheless you cannot refer to more than 1 % of the numbers contained therein. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 03:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <771332aa-faad-4449-afd6-a8a2480f33f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422937 |
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 12:00:26 UTC+2, transf...@gmail.com wrote: > I have proved that "for all n e |N" is nonsense. The UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER ranges over ELEMENTS of a set, and ACCESSIBILITY (as you put it) of natural numbers is rather GUARANTEED! All you keep proving is that you talk bullshit... Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 04:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9abf6aa2-04ae-455d-bef2-d7ec55b0c5d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422942 |
Am Dienstag, 4. September 2018 12:42:28 UTC+2 schrieb Julio Di Egidio: > On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 12:00:26 UTC+2, transf...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I have proved that "for all n e |N" is nonsense. > > The UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER ranges over ELEMENTS of a set, and ACCESSIBILITY (as > you put it) of natural numbers is rather GUARANTEED! That is a wrong claim of FOL. Therefore FOL is trash. > > All you keep proving is that you talk bullshit... Then you should be able to refute my proof. A single example would do. Refer to a natnumber that multiplied by 100 is not a natnumber. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b1c7c94-d766-4b9e-b586-088ecd39bba8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422945 |
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 13:38:24 UTC+2, transf...@gmail.com wrote: > Am Dienstag, 4. September 2018 12:42:28 UTC+2 schrieb Julio Di Egidio: > > On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 12:00:26 UTC+2, transf...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > I have proved that "for all n e |N" is nonsense. > > > > The UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER ranges over ELEMENTS of a set, and ACCESSIBILITY > > (as you put it) of natural numbers is rather GUARANTEED! > > That is a wrong claim of FOL. Therefore FOL is trash. It's first-order PA, where the set of natural numbers is recursive. Then YOU PROVE that *fact* wrong if you can: produce a natural number that cannot be "accessed". Try, fail. > > All you keep proving is that you talk bullshit... > > Then you should be able to refute my proof. Your proofs, when they are at least wrong, are easily refuted. Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 03:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5d6cf0d-bbc7-46e4-be5f-8e82c91e33c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422951 |
Am Dienstag, 4. September 2018 14:09:19 UTC+2 schrieb Julio Di Egidio: > On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 13:38:24 UTC+2, transf...@gmail.com wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 4. September 2018 12:42:28 UTC+2 schrieb Julio Di Egidio: > > > On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 12:00:26 UTC+2, transf...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > I have proved that "for all n e |N" is nonsense. > > > > > > The UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIER ranges over ELEMENTS of a set, and ACCESSIBILITY > > > (as you put it) of natural numbers is rather GUARANTEED! > > > > That is a wrong claim of FOL. Therefore FOL is trash. > > It's first-order PA, where the set of natural numbers is recursive. Then > YOU PROVE that *fact* wrong if you can: produce a natural number that cannot > be "accessed". Nonsense. Then it would be assessible. Frege had the same wrong argument. He has overlooked the fact that universal quatification is impossible for infinite sets. If you cannot understand try to find a natural number outside of the first of say 100 consecutive initial segments. Then I will tell you. > > Then you should be able to refute my proof. > > Your proofs, when they are at least wrong, are easily refuted. Try it. That means you have to find a natural number outside of the first of at least 100 similar consecutive intervals. Why do you have to do so? Because my proof says that you cannot. Nothing more, nothing less. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web