December 1997 Archives by thread

• Messages sorted by: [ subject ] [ author ] [ date ]
• More info on this list...

Starting: Mon Dec 1 06:28:23 EDT 1997
Ending: Wed Dec 31 18:53:15 EDT 1997
Messages: 284

• FOM: Barwise should be moved   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Leibniz and infinitesimal quantities   Walter Felscher
• FOM: Feferman on inherent vagueness of CH   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: Feferman on inherent vagueness of CH   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Mathematicians' views of Goedel's incompleteness theorem(s)   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Feferman on inherent vagueness of CH   John Case
• FOM: Feferman on "Mathematician's Views ..."   Lee J. Stanley
• FOM: Mathematicians' views of Goedel's incompleteness theorem(s)   John Case
• FOM: The instrumental value of problematic notions and principles   Solomon Feferman
  • FOM: In defense of vagueness_2.   Jon Barwise
• FOM: Feferman on inherent vagueness of CH   Neil Tennant
• FOM: more on the "vagueness" of CH   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: more on the "vagueness" of CH   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Infinitesimals and gift suggestions   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Peter Simons' essay on Frege's theory of real numbers   Charles Parsons
• FOM: non-standard models   Walter Felscher
• FOM: Feferman on inherent vagueness of CH   penelope maddy
• FOM: Goedel and radioastronomy   Kanovei
• FOM: Friedman, second order, CH, arithmetic and large cardinals ...   John Case
• FOM: Feferman on inherent vagueness of CH   Jerry Seligman
• FOM: more on inherent vagueness   Neil Tennant
• FOM: non-standard models   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: non-standard models   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Horn Angles and Non-standard Analysis   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: inherent vagueness of CH   michael Detlefsen
• FOM: Nonstandard models; Skolem   Moshe' Machover
• No subject   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: reply to Detlefson on vagueness   Neil Tennant
• FOM: meaningfulness of CH   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: follow-up to reply to Detlefsen   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: archives; an unsigned message on lucky axioms   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: CH, GCH, and determinacy   Stewart Shapiro
• FOM: Further comments on CH and "inherent vagueness"   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Cantor and Hilbert knew what they were talking about   jshipman at bloomberg.net
  • FOM: Cantor and Hilbert knew what they were talking about   Torkel Franzen
  • FOM: Cantor and Hilbert knew what they were talking about   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Further comments on CH and "inherent vagueness"   John Case
• FOM: Reply to Feferman on Cantor and Hilbert   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: correction of dates re Skolem   Neil Tennant
• FOM: answer to Neil's question about nonstandard models of arithmetic   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Reply to Franzen on Cantor and Hilbert   jshipman at bloomberg.net
  • FOM: Reply to Franzen on Cantor and Hilbert   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Cantor and Hilbert knew what they were talking about   Martin Davis
• FOM: Reply to Franzen on Cantor and Hilbert   Martin Davis
• FOM: Cantor and Hilbert knew what they were talking about   Stewart Shapiro
• FOM: Reply to Davis re undecidable propositions   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Final remarks on Cantor, Hilbert, and CH   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Steve Simpson on K"onig's lemma, non-standard models etc.   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: non-standard models, completeness, compactness   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: truth, meaning, undecidability: Steel, Shipman, Franzen   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Knowing something to be essentially undecidable   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Franzen on fiction   steel at math.berkeley.edu
  • FOM: Fiction and non-fiction   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Hilbert's Hubris   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: New axioms/deepening our intuitions   Lee J. Stanley
• FOM: Appeals to authority   Lee J. Stanley
• FOM: Appealing to authority   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Cinq lettres   Kanovei
  • FOM: Cinq lettres   Charles Parsons
• FOM:Sha/DAv on Can/Hil & CH? Vagueness   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: the Borel universe (a positive posting)   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: the Borel universe (a positive posting)   John Case
• FOM: Re: the Borel universe (a positive posting)   Michael Thayer
• FOM: the Borel universe/but it wasn't blather -- a problem about meaning   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: the Borel universe   Kanovei
• FOM: Etiquette of discussion   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: Etiquette of discussion   Solomon Feferman
  • FOM: apology; request for summary   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: the Borel universe/but it wasn't blather -- a problem about meaning   John Case
• FOM: the Borel universe (a positive posting)   John Case
• FOM: etiquette, summary, policy   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: 10:Pathology   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: etiquette, summary, policy   John Case
• FOM: On CH/1   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: 10:Pathology   John Case
• FOM: re: On CH/1   Kanovei
• FOM: questionnaire   Neil Tennant
• FOM: BT and Borel   David Ross
  • FOM: David Ross's comment on the Banach-Tarski paradox   Stephen G Simpson
    • FOM: David Ross's comment on the Banach-Tarski paradox   jbaldwin at uic.edu
      • FOM: David Ross's comment on the Banach-Tarski paradox   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Significance of work on Goedel's program   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Too much e-mail? I want more subscribers!   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: One person's blather is another one's progress   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Bourbaki and other delights   Adrian Mathias Barcelona
• FOM: Meaning vs Significance Nailed Down, Work for Logic and Rev.Math.   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: my papers and email addresses   Adrian Mathias Barcelona
• FOM: meaning, significance, CH, Tragesser; some positive remarks   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Is every provable theorem capable of an elementary proof?   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: ElementaryProof, ReverseMath?   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Test Case for "Elementary" Proofs   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
  • FOM: Test Case for "Elementary" Proofs   Torkel Franzen
  • FOM: Test Case for "Elementary" Proofs   Walter Felscher
• FOM: meaning, significance, CH, Tragesser; some positive remarks   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: re: the Borel universe   Kanovei
• FOM: JShipman on CH &elementary proof issue   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Dirichlet and Wiles   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Banach-Tarski and Borel sets   steel at math.berkeley.edu
  • FOM: Banach-Tarski/Borel/Elementary   Harvey Friedman
  • FOM: Banach-Tarski and Borel sets; pathology   Stephen G Simpson
    • FOM: Cinq Lettres and the Borel universe   Walter Felscher
• FOM: My BT post   David Ross
  • FOM: Banach-Tarski; we must strive for clarity!   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Banach-Tarski and Borel sets   Kanovei
• FOM: Reply to Tragesser on CH and elementary proofs   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Quick clarification on CH and Martin's axiom   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Reply to Friedman -- what Tragesser means by "elementary"   jshipman at bloomberg.net
  • FOM: Better terminology?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: some terminological questions   Neil Tennant
• FOM: decidability of sets of axioms   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: decidability of sets of axioms   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Test Case for "Elementary" Proofs   Lou van den Dries
• FOM: decidability of sets of axioms   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: ElementaryProof: philosophy/history   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: elementary proofs, terminology, etc.   michael Detlefsen
• FOM: Independent axiomatizations   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: My BT post again   David Ross
• FOM: a blunt apology and a sharpened question   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Methodological Purity & Elementary   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Independent axiomatizations   Sam Buss
• FOM: My BT post again   Apollo Hogan
• FOM: RevMth, Friedman'sPrinciple, Aristotle, ElementaryProof   Robert S Tragesser
  • FOM: Aristotle, name-dropping, reverse math, juicy quotes   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Independent axiomatizations   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Past Issues:Set techniques, natural, transcenndental, acioms, postmoder   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: FJohnson'sRequestForRecentBooksOnPost.Analyt   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: The Aristotelian ideal and reverse mathematics   michael Detlefsen
• FOM: cinq lettres, Banach-Tarski, Aristotle, Borel sets, Kanovei   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Borel sets and Borelian mathematics   Solomon Feferman
• DetlefsenFOM: The Aristotelian ideal and reverse mathematics   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Lakatos   Jeffery Zucker
  • FOM: Lakatos   Reuben Hersh
  • FOM: Lakatos   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: 11:F.O.M. & Math Logic   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Kreisel on the elementary, the purity of method   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Borel sets   Kanovei
• FOM: Re: 11:F.O.M. & Math Logic   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Paradoxical decompositions of space   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Measures of semi algebraic sets   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Borel sets and Methodenreinheit   Stephen G Simpson
  • FOM: Borel sets and Methodenreinheit (correction)   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Paradoxical decompositions of space   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Lakatos   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: OBT   Kanovei
• FOM: Lakatos references   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Friedman's posting #11.   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Imre Lakatos (Imre Lipschitz)   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: Measures of semi algebraic sets   Lou van den Dries
  • FOM: Re: Measures of semi algebraic sets   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Lakatos as logic chopper   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Borel sets   Kanovei
• FOM: Lakatos as logic chopper   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: Lakatos' Proofs and Refutations   Mark Steiner
• FOM: Re: Measures of semi algebraic sets   Lou van den Dries
  • FOM: General intellectual interest/challenges   Harvey Friedman
    • FOM: General intellectual interest/challenges   Torkel Franzen
      • FOM: Re: General intellectual interest/challenges   Harvey Friedman
      • FOM: Re: General intellectual interest/challenges   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Do proofs have to be from a decidable axiom set?   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: Do proofs have to be from a decidable axiom set?   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Independent axiomatizations   Sam Buss
• FOM: Cabillon's ? abt: ADEQUATE PROOF&LAKATOS   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: the historical and logical pedigree of the Borel universe   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Re: fom-digest V1 #19   John Case
• FOM: General intellectual interest/challenges   Lou van den Dries
  • FOM: F.O.M./pure math; general intellectual interest   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: When is a proof conclusive? Reply to Gonzales Cabillon   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Conclusiveness of Proofs III   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Conclusiveness of Proofs IV   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Conclusion on Conclusiveness   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Conclusiveness of Proofs II (a reconstruction)   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Conclusion on Conclusiveness   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: the historical and logical pedigree of the Borel universe   Kanovei
• FOM: the historical pedigree of the Borel universe   Kanovei
• FOM: Re: When is a proof conclusive? Reply to GonzaleZ Cabillon   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: Decidable axioms sets and algorithms in proofs   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: Decidable axioms sets and algorithms in proofs   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Einstein quote   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Reply to Machover on conclusiveness   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Reply to Machover on Conclusiveness -- addendum   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: the blind spot about theory-completeness and categoricity   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: the blind spot about theory-completeness and categoricity   Charles Silver
• FOM: pathologically recursive axiomatizations   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: Recursive and independent axiomatizations   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: the blind spot about theory-completeness and categoricity   Kanovei
• FOM: Reply to Shipman on conclusiveness   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: New Subscribers!   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: F.O.M./pure math; general intellectual interest   Lou van den Dries
  • FOM: F.O.M./pure math; general intellectual interest   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: on independent axiomatizations: a new requirement   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Shpmn/Mchovr: A distinction.   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: recursive independent axiomatizations   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: More on conclusiveness of proofs   F. Xavier Noria
• FOM: More on conclusiveness of proofs   Kanovei
• FOM: F.O.M./pure math; general intellectual interest   Lou van den Dries
  • FOM: Re: F.O.M./pure math; general intellectual interest   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Reals and reality -- reply to Machover   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
  • FOM: Re: Reals and reality   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Re: Independent axiomatizations   Sam Buss
• FOM: The ineffability theorem: definitions and proof   Neil Tennant
• FOM: More on conclusiveness of proofs   Randy Pollack
  • FOM: More on conclusiveness of proofs   Don Fallis
• FOM: proof-theoretic criteria for synthetic axiomatizations and theorems   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Proof-theoretic criteria for syntheticity axiomatizations (revised)   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Objectivity of logical/mathematical truth?   Solomon Feferman
  • FOM: Objectivity of logical/mathematical truth?   Torkel Franzen
  • FOM: Objectivity of logical/mathematical truth?   Reuben Hersh
    • FOM: Objectivity of logical/mathematical truth?   Jon Barwise
• FOM: Complex i.   Dana_Scott at POP.CS.CMU.EDU
• FOM: Reals and reality /imaginaries and reality   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: recursive independent axiomatizations   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: no recursive independent axiomatization   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: General intellectual interest   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: General intellectrual interest   Michael Thayer
  • FOM: General intellectrual interest   Charles Silver
• FOM: Reply to Pollack: machine-checked and probabilistic proofs   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Independent axiomatizations ...   John Case
• FOM: Complex Numbers   Mark Steiner
• FOM: Meeting popular demand   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Re:no recursive independent axiomatization   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Lakatos, Objectivity, Gen Intellectual Interest, Political Agendas   Robert S Tragesser
  • FOM: What is mathematics, really?, Gen Intellectual Interest, Political Agendas   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Complex i.:Questions for Daan Scott   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Re: Re: General intellectual interest/challenges   Michael Thayer
• FOM: General intellectrual interest   Michael Thayer
• FOM: generic absoluteness and CH   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: Re: FOM P=NP   Martin Davis
  • FOM: P=NP   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Re: Re: General intellectual interest/challenges   Lou van den Dries
• FOM: Creating "general interest"   Colin McLarty
• FOM: prophets   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Let's get some perspective on things here ...   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Objectivity of logical/mathematical truth?   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: How likely is P = NP?   Stephen Cook
• FOM: Stanley Rosen responds to : Lakatos, Objectivity. . .   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Pour-El on independent axiomatizations   Sam Buss
• FOM: generic absoluteness and CH   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: social construction and general intellectual interest   michael Detlefsen
  • FOM: social construction and general intellectual interest   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: How likely is P = NP?   Martin Davis
• FOM: P=NP   Martin Davis
  • FOM: Re: P=NP   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Objectivity of logical/mathematical truth?   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Objectivity: reaction to Detlefsen and Hersh   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: general intellectual interest/pragmatics   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Objectivity,intersubjectivity and "social construction"   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Uniqueness of axioms ? for Tennant, Detlefsen, et al.   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Weierstrass or Riemann? Limits of Arithmetization.   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: prophets   Kanovei
• FOM: agreements and remarks   Shipman, Joe x2845
• FOM: reverse math: juicy quotes from Aristotle and David Ross   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Challenge on CH   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
  • FOM: Re: Challenge on CH   Harvey Friedman
    • FOM: "Contingent" Truths of Arithmetic?   Charles Silver
• FOM: Platonism v. social constructivism   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: Platonism v. social constructivism   Reuben Hersh
    • FOM: Platonism v. social constructivism   Charles Silver
• FOM: purposes of FOM; new rules for postings   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Finite AC?   Karlis Podnieks
• FOM: Objectivity   John Mayberry
• FOM: Finite AC?   Kanovei
• FOM: Podnieks on AC, Platonism, and Intuition   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Re: Finite AC?   Karlis Podnieks
• FOM: Greetings; and comments sought   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Is God uncountable? Plato and Berkeley revisited   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: More on the astonishing dictum   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: More on the astonishing dictum   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Platonism v. social constructivism   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: "when humanity disappears"...numbers and G-d   Neil Tennant
  • FOM: "when humanity disappears"...numbers and G-d   Reuben Hersh
• No subject   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: suspect   Lou van den Dries
  • FOM: F.O.M./math comparison   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Hersh's Book   Stephen Cook
  • FOM: Hersh's Book   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Nonprofessionals   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Exmple.for Hersh contra Tennant   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: New rules for postings   Solomon Feferman
  • FOM: New rules for postings   Charles Parsons
• FOM: F.O.M./PureMath/GII   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: ASL Meeting   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: F.O.M./PureMath/GII   Lou van den Dries
• FOM: GII/FII   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: clarification   Lou van den Dries

Last message date: Wed Dec 31 18:53:15 EDT 1997
Archived on: Fri Mar 11 12:47:32 EDT 2005

• Messages sorted by: [ subject ] [ author ] [ date ]
• More info on this list...