March 1998 Archives by date

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

Starting: Sun Mar 1 00:19:01 EDT 1998
Ending: Tue Mar 31 16:00:10 EDT 1998
Messages: 506

• FOM: Chou vs Hersh; intuitionism and building bridges; legal logic   Peter White
• FOM: categorical dys-foundations   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Re: Reuben Hersh: Mitteilungen der DMV (fwd)   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Platonism v. social constructivism   Charles Silver
• FOM: from Intel to foundations of subjects (was Chou vs Hersh)   Olivier Gerard
• FOM: iterative conception of set: are sets natural for everything?   Charles Silver
• FOM: Comment on Hersh   Soren Riis
• FOM: Hersh's fingers   Charles Parsons
• FOM: intuitionism and building bridges   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: finite choice   Kanovei
• FOM: Comment on Hersh and Riis   Kanovei
• FOM: finite and constructive choice (was: Mitteilungen der DMV)   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: intuitionism and building bridges   Kanovei
• FOM: D-finite choice   Kanovei
• FOM: finite choice   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Hersh's fingers   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: iterative conception of set   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Comment on Hersh   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: sour grapes vis a vis Reverse Mathematics   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Hersh's fingers   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Franzen on "which undecidables have determinate truth value"   Karlis Podnieks
• FOM: Chou vs Hersh; intuitionism and building bridges; legal logic   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: iterative conception of set: are sets natural for everything?   Thomas Forster
• FOM: Books, foundations, intuitionism, NF   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Simpson's query on my response to Silver   hartry field
• FOM: motivation of NF(U)   Randall Holmes
• FOM: conceptions of set in NFU and ZFC   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Comment on Hersh   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Platonism v. social constructivism   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Comment on Hersh and Riis   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: music versus a couple of facts   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Kreisel's "unwinding" program   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: "Kreiseliana"   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Reply to Hersh   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: careful exposition   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Reverse Mathematics and Capitalism   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Reverse Mathematics and Capitalism   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Simpson's query on my response to Silver   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Kreisel's "unwinding" program   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: straification   Thomas Forster
• FOM: What did Macintyre say in Sicily ?   Adrian Mathias
• FOM: straification   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: elimination of analytic methods in number theory   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Hartry Field's argument concerning "determinate truth"   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: elimination of analytic methods in number theory   Olivier Gerard
• FOM: elimination of analytic methods in number theory   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: intuitionistic mathematics and building bridges   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Finitist Dirichlet   Olivier Gerard
• FOM: What did Macintyre say in Sicily ?   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: FOM, unwinding and elimination of analytical methods   Ulrich Kohlenbach
• FOM: on Dummett's etc.   palma, adriano p
• FOM: intuitionistic mathematics and building bridges   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: di Giorgi result cited by Thomas Forster   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Brouwer & Beyond ZF   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Hersh's tripartition of reality; Simpson's definition of intuitionnism   Patrick Peccatte
• FOM: preamble to a Dummettian account of intuitionistic logic   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Simpson query   hartry field
• FOM: the interface between philosophy and f.o.m.   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Books, foundations, intuitionism, NF   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Simpson query   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: the interface between philosophy and f.o.m.   palma, adriano p
• FOM: Barendregt's ideas on "computational f.o.m."   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: "structual" foundations   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Reply to Pratt on Einstein   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Books, foundations, intuitionism, NF   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Re: Books, foundations   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Further pointless backchat (ongoing) (continued)   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: responding, subscribers, wrestling   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: information about the FOM list   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: How About Listing Foundational Issues?   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Reply to Pratt: Einstein, determinism, uncertainty   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Reply to Pratt: Einstein, determinism, uncertainty   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: FOM/Godel/Wittgenstein   jk
• FOM: Re: Field on LEM and determinate truth value   Neil Tennant
• FOM: listing foundational issues   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Godel/Wittgenstein   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Books, foundations, intuitionism, NF   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Books, foundations, intuitionism, NF   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: listing foundational issues   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Re: LEM and determinate truth value   hartry field
• FOM: Franzen query of March 5   hartry field
• FOM: supervaluationism and LEM   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Interpreting double negation   Todd Wilson
• FOM: Re: Field on LEM and determinate truth value   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: continuum hypothesis, determinate truth value   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: supervaluationism and LEM   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Foundational aims? asked again.   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: GODEL/WITTGENSTEIN   jk
• FOM: Books, foundations, intuitionism, NF   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Intuitionism, Godel   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Godel/Wittgenstein, classical f.o.m.   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: listing foundational issues   Larry Stout
• FOM: listing foundational issues   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Dark pubs   Lou van den Dries
• FOM: Franzen query of March 5   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Re: Intuitionism, Godel   Ulrich Kohlenbach
• FOM: 3 TOP problems, reply to Friedman   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Books, foundations, intuitionism, NF   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: dimly lit pubs; some questions for the applied model theorists   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Our understanding of "proof"   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: Intuitionism, Godel   Lou van den Dries
• FOM: Intuitionism, Godel   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: dimly lit pubs; some questions for the applied model theorists   Lou van den Dries
• FOM: Books, foundations, intuitionism, NF   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Reply to Wallen on "proof"   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Goedel and the rejection of intuitionism   Charles Parsons
• FOM: thinking linearly?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: fom good?, thank you   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Pratt has humor!!   Soren Riis
• FOM: LEM and (in)determinate truth value   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Martin Davis
• : FOM: Godel/Wittgenstein, classical f.o.m.   Michael Thayer
• FOM: humorous interlude   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Question: why is category theory viewed as relativism?   Michael Thayer
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: 12:Finite trees/large cardinals   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Reply to Wallen on "proof"   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: Question: why is category theory viewed as relativism?   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Re: Question   Soren Riis
• FOM: Reply to Wallen on "proof"   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Assorted other replies   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Question: why is category theory viewed as relativism?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Re: Re: Question   Michael Thayer
• FOM: Intuitionism, Goedel   Charles Parsons
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Jaap van Oosten
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Dedekind   Kanovei
• FOM: Boolean rings; the quandary of categorical mis-foundations   Stephen G Simpson
• Subject: FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: isomorphism   Jaap van Oosten
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Till Mossakowski
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Martin Davis by way of martind at cs.berkeley.edu Martin Davis
• FOM: Boolean algebras/rings; isomorphism; categorical confusion   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Charles Parsons
• FOM: fom: Simpson's motives   Steve Awodey
• FOM: P.S. Boolean rings and Boolean algebras   Vaughan Pratt
• Subject: FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Vaughan Pratt
• Subject: FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Boolean rings; the quandary of categorical mis-foundations   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: P.S. Boolean rings and Boolean algebras   Till Mossakowski
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Charles Silver
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Dedekind on Numbers   Walter Felscher
• FOM: Re: isomorphism; annoyment   Jaap van Oosten
• FOM: Boolean algebras/rings; isomorphism; categorical confusion   Till Mossakowski
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: naive or brainwashed? (objective vs. subjective in math.)   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Dedekind on Numbers   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Dedekind on Numbers   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Strong rhetoric   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   Martin Davis
• FOM: Dedekind --- The ultimate definition of cut?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Dedekind on Numbers   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Re:   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: thinking linearly?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: naive or brainwashed? (objective vs. subjective in math.)   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Comment on Parson/Davis   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Charles Silver
• Amendment to Re: FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Intuitionistic cuts   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Dedekind on Numbers   Kanovei
• FOM: Dedekind --- The ultimate definition of cut? Erratum   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Strong rhetoric   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Comment on Parson/Davis   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Dedekind and 'liberal' terminology   Walter Felscher
• FOM: algebraic simplicity? the obliteration of logic   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Re: Intuitionistic cuts   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Boolean rings; moving on toward interesting f.o.m. issues   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: exterminating category theory? grammatical errors? patronizing?   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Dedekind on Numbers   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: Boolean rings; moving on toward interesting f.o.m. issues   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: NATURE of maths   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: Intuitionistic cuts   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: basis vs signature; unity of human knowledge; algebra vs f.o.m.   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Re: algebraic simplicity? the obliteration of logic   Steve Awodey
• FOM: essentially algebraic; worse than Simpson   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: categorical mis-foundations; essentially algebraic theories   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: basis vs signature; unity of human knowledge; algebra vs f.o.m.   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: rings vs. algebras   Kanovei
• FOM: Re: Intuitionistic cuts   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: judging f.o.m.   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: NATURE of maths   Charles Silver
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Charles Silver
• FOM: Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance   palma, adriano p
• FOM: CAT inattention to f.o.m. issues   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Boolean rings; basis vs signature   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: essentially algebraic, open problems   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: Intuitionistic cuts/partitions   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: NATURE of mathematics   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: essentially algebraic; worse than Simpson   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: judging f.o.m.   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: card-carrying category theorists; Simpson-bashing   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: rings vs. algebras   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: game-playing?   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: NATURE of mathematics   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: rings vs. algebras   Kanovei
• FOM: affectionate jokes, reply to Simpson   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Boolean rings: another epiphany?   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: rings vs. algebras   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: essentially algebraic, open problems   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: card-carrying category theorists; Simpson-bashing   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Martin Davis
• FOM: Intuitionistic cuts/partitions   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: game-playing?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: What is necessary about the use of large cardinals?   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: "essentially algebraic"?   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: What is necessary about the use of large cardinals?   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Friedman's result   Neil Tennant
• FOM: What is necessary about the use of large cardinals?   Martin Davis
• FOM: Friedman's result on necessary use of large cardinals   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: What is necessary about the use of large cardinals?   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: cardinals and finite statements   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: judging f.o.m.   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Friedman's result   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: preoccupation?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Friedman's result   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Simpson on "essentially algebraic"?]   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Dedekind and 'liberal' terminology   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: necessity of schemes?   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Friedman's result on necessary use of large cardinals   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Friedman's result on necessary use of large cardinals   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: the problem of frivolous postings   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Simpson on "essentially algebraic"?]   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: Large Cardinals and other areas of mathematics   Benedikt Loewe
• FOM: Altavista and Chu spaces   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: background for Friedman's results   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: large cardinals and other areas of mathematics   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Martin Davis
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: Boolean near-triviality   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Friedman's result   Neil Tennant
• FOM: the problem of frivolous postings   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Quiz   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Foundations of Boolean near-triviality   Olivier Gerard
• FOM: FOM threads; censoring Forster; Boolean near-triviality   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: general intellectual interest; Franzen's quest   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: background for Friedman's results   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: advances in f.o.m.   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: retraction   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Feferman wet blanket for f.o.m.?   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: content, not character   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: general intellectual interest; Franzen's quest   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: background for Friedman's results   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: CH   Kanovei
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles   Kanovei
• FOM: Hersh &the Dumbed Down Mathematics Movement   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: background for Friedman's results   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: For Tragesser, Pratt, Franzen, et al.   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Peter White
• FOM: Reaction to Simpson   Henk Barendregt
• FOM: Simpson's question: addendum   Henk Barendregt
• FOM: retraction   Walter Felscher
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Feferman wet blanket for f.o.m.?   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: qualifications for judging g.i.i.; a philosophical exercise   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: difference, structure, congruence   Leo Harrington
• FOM: difference, structure, congruence   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: RE: Quiz   F. Xavier Noria
• FOM: Re: On Friedman's results   Arnon Avron
• FOM: Quiz   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Reply to Tennant re cuts as partitions   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: difference, structure, congruence   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Translatability   Till Mossakowski
• FOM: Basta   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: corrected conjecture   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Feferman wet blanket for f.o.m.?   palma, adriano p
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles   palma, adriano p
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles   Kanovei
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Response to Tennant, Simpson, Friedman   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Basta   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: gii   Kanovei
• FOM: NATURE of mathematics   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: Basta   Arnon Avron
• FOM: Basta   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Friedman on schemes and anonymous critics   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Basta   Martin Davis
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: e-mail psychology   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Significance and significant people   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Basta   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Sazonov's "What is the standard model for PA ?" and Brian Rotman postmodern semiotics of mathematics   Patrick Peccatte
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Answers to some of Gonzales Cabillon's questions   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Tennant's panegyric   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: FOM : Jurassic pebbles on the beaches of infinity   Olivier Souan
• FOM: difference, structure, congruence   Leo Harrington
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Barendregt's f.o.m. and c.f.o.m.   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: lagrangian pebbles   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Foebe and Robin   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Randall Holmes
• FOM: lagrangian pebbles   Martin Davis
• FOM: lagrangian pebbles   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: panegyric?   Neil Tennant
• FOM: ultrafinitism; objective vs. subjective   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: organizing; Boolean rings; signature   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: NATURE of mathematics   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Foebe and Robin   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: organizing; Boolean rings; signature   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: diamonds   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: lagrangian pebbles   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles (more on Davis/Hersh)   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Significance and significant people   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Charles Silver
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Charles Silver
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Charles Silver
• FOM: g.i.i.; Tragesser; philosophical exercises   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: resp.to Tait   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Re: diamonds   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Karlis Podnieks
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Basta   Dan Halpern
• FOM: organizing; Boolean rings; signature   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: social construction?   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Rhetoric in mathematics   Corfield, David [CES]
• FOM: social construction?   Martin Davis
• FOM: naive or brainwashed?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Re: diamonds   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: social construction?   Randall Holmes
• FOM: social construction?   Charles Silver
• FOM: signature; Boolean rings; Pratt's rewrite   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: chess "theorems"   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: ultrafinitism; objective vs. subjective   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: social construction?   Martin Davis
• FOM: Platonism   Olivier Souan
• FOM: social construction?   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: ultrafinitism; objective vs. subjective   Todd Wilson
• FOM: social construction of mathematics?   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: signature; Boolean rings; Pratt's rewrite   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: chess contest   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: social construction?   Martin Davis
• FOM: 13:Min recursion/Provably recursive functions   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: ultrafinitism; objective vs. subjective   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Chess "theorems"   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: chess "theorems"   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: More on chess and math   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Reply to Gonzales Cabillon on whether chess is a draw   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Jurassic pebbles   Kanovei
• FOM: attacks against f.o.m.   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: social construction?   Charles Silver
• FOM: Trad.vers.Funct.Algebra #1   Walter Felscher
• FOM: social construction?   Kanovei
• FOM: Trad.vers.Funct.Algebra #2   Walter Felscher
• FOM: Trad.vers.Funct.Algebra # 3   Walter Felscher
• FOM: Trad.vers.Funct.Algebra # 4   Walter Felscher
• FOM: social construction?   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: organizing; Boolean rings; signature   Till Mossakowski
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: reference of mathematical discourse   Randall Holmes
• FOM: organizing; Boolean rings; signature   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: social construction?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: social construction?   Charles Silver
• FOM: Trad.vers.Funct.Algebra #1   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: foundations using NFU (and an ad)   Randall Holmes
• FOM: chess contest   Julio GonZaleZ Cabillon
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Re: NFU (and an ad)   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: NFU (and an ad)   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: chess "axioms" and untraversed gaps   Don Fallis
• FOM: organizing; Boolean rings; signature   Till Mossakowski
• FOM: Definition of Lawvere theory: additional condition needed   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: organizing   Patrick Peccatte
• FOM: reference of mathematical discourse   Neil Tennant
• FOM: reference of mathematical discourse   Neil Tennant
• FOM: use and mention, objective, astronomical calculations, etc.   Reuben Hersh
• No subject   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: miscellaneous   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: social construction?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: social construction?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: Definition of Lawvere theory: additional condition needed   Martin Davis
• FOM: use and mention, objective, astronomical calculations, etc.   Martin Davis
• FOM: Re:   Martin Davis
• FOM: social construction?   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: social construction?   Martin Davis
• FOM: social construction?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: social construction?   Martin Davis
• FOM: organizing; Boolean rings; signature   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: social construction?   Charles Silver
• FOM: Definition of Lawvere theory: additional condition needed   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: social construction?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: social construction?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: social construction?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: social construction?   Martin Davis
• FOM: Refuting Hersh by Hersh.   Soren Riis
• FOM: use and mention, objective, astronomical calculations, etc.   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: march 21 postings   Reuben Hersh
• No subject   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: social construction?   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: social construction?   Charles Silver
• FOM: Refuting Hersh by Hersh.   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: polynomial v. combinatorial independence   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Reply to Hersh on truth and time   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Correction on URL   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: reference of mathematical discourse   Randall Holmes
• FOM: use and mention, objective, astronomical calculations, etc.   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Re:   Martin Davis
• FOM: Diophantine equations   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: McLarty's questions about my book   Randall Holmes
• FOM: polynomial v. combinatorial independence   Martin Davis
• FOM: FOM : Jurassic pebbles on the beaches of infinity   Lincoln Wallen
• FOM: (mercifully brief) reply to Hersh's reply   Randall Holmes
• No subject   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: polynomial v. combinatorial independence   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Diophantine polynomials--reply to Tennant   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Re:   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: use and mention, objective, astronomical calculations, etc.   Martin Davis
• FOM: Re: those tired jurassic pebbles   Martin Davis
• FOM: Re:   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Time to park the Jurassic pebbles?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: use and mention, objective, astronomical calculations, etc.   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: (mercifully brief) reply to Hersh's reply   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: take it outside, boys   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Refuting Hersh (cont)   Soren Riis
• FOM: organizing; Boolean rings; signature   Peter White
• FOM: Diophantine polynomials--reply to Tennant   Martin Davis
• FOM: Correction on Diophantine Polynomials etc.   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: A howler   Charles Silver
• FOM: Why Friedman's result is a big improvement   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Re: A howler   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: use and mention, objective, astronomical calculations, etc.   Thomas Forster
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: use and mention, objective, astronomical calculations, etc.   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: responses to Franzen: feasibility; g.i.i.   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Reuben, did you really mean this?   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Non-scientific pseudo-problems   Soren Riis
• FOM: Why Friedman's result is a big improvement   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Consistency proofs   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Consistency proofs   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: in the privacy of our imaginations ..   Randy Pollack
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Hodges' comments on criticisms of Cantor's diagonalization argument   Fred Johnson
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Martin Davis
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Martin Davis
• FOM: Consistency proofs   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: determinacy and Friedman-style independence results   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Charles Silver
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Wittgenstein   Charles Parsons
• FOM: Consistency proofs   Rick Sommer
• FOM: Large Cardinals and Combinatorics   Joseph Shoenfield
• FOM: Platonism and social constructivism   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: What is the standard model for PA?   Martin Davis
• FOM: Wittgenstein: two clarifications   Charles Parsons
• FOM: Wittgenstein: fad?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Wittgenstein: two clarifications   Thomas Forster
• FOM: Finite vs. Infinite: Reply to Shoenfield   joe shipman DERV PORT x2845
• FOM: HF's results   Kanovei
• FOM: Postscript to 'Dedekind on Numbers'   Walter Felscher
• FOM: Wittgenstein: two clarifications   Neil Tennant
• FOM: f.o.m. significance of Friedman's work   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: f.o.m. significance of Friedman's work (corrections)   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Consistency proofs   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Corrections to my note today on Consistency Proofs   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Consistency proofs revised   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Wittgenstein: two clarifications   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Large cardinals and combinatorics   Joseph Shoenfield
• FOM: a preprint   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Syntactic distiction between finitary and infinitary   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ SKILLMAN
• FOM: large cardinals and combinatorics   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Wittgenstein: two clarifications   Neil Tennant
• FOM: History and f.o.m.   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Feasibility and (in)determinateness of the standard numbers   Vladimir Sazonov

Last message date: Tue Mar 31 16:00:10 EDT 1998
Archived on: Fri Mar 11 12:47:54 EDT 2005

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