January 1998 Archives by subject

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

Starting: Thu Jan 1 06:44:26 EDT 1998
Ending: Sat Jan 31 16:04:27 EDT 1998
Messages: 401

• [cxm7@po.CWRU.Edu: Re: FOM: bad set membership]   Colin Mclarty
• [cxm7@po.CWRU.Edu: Re: FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.]   Colin Mclarty
• [simpson@math.psu.edu: Re: FOM: the exaggerated claims of topos theory qua f.o.m.]   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: "collection" as a basic mathematical concept   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: "function" as a basic mathematical concept   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: "function" as a basic mathematical concept   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: "function" as a basic mathematical concept   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: "function" as a basic mathematical concept   Colin McLarty
• FOM: "function" as a basic mathematical concept   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: "function" as a basic mathematical concept   Colin McLarty
• FOM: "function" as a basic mathematical concept   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: "function" as a basic mathematical concept   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: "list 2"   Dave Marker
• FOM: "Mathematical" versus "Mathematics"   Karlis Podnieks
• FOM: "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"   Martin Davis
• FOM: "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"   Karlis Podnieks
• FOM: "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"   Martin Davis
• FOM: "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: "Unreasonable effectiveness..."; CAT vs. SET   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: "Unreasonable effectiveness..."; CAT vs. SET   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: "Unreasonable effectiveness..."; CAT vs. SET   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: "Unreasonable effectiveness..."; CAT vs. SET   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: 'platonism' again; also Tait   Charles Parsons
• FOM: aboutness   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: alternative foundations   Randall Holmes
• FOM: alternative foundations   Colin McLarty
• FOM: an "obvious" observation   Randall Holmes
• FOM: an "obvious" observation   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: An explanation of the method of thought experiments   Neil Tennant
• FOM: An explanation of the method of thought experiments   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: An explanation of the method of thought experiments   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: An explanation of the method of thought experiments   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Arguments in FOM   Martin Krieger
• FOM: Aristotle and the unity of science   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Aristotle and the unity of science   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Aristotle's critique of Platonism in mathematics   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Aristotle's critique of Platonism in mathematics   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Aristotle; critique of Platonism in mathematics   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Aristotle; critique of Platonism in mathematics   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Aristotle; critique of Platonism in mathematics   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: bad set membership   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: CAT, SET and TOP   Robert Black
• FOM: Cat.Thy as logic of wholes and parts.   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Categorical "foundations"   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Categorical "foundations"?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Categorical "foundations"?   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: categorical "foundations"?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: categorical dys-foundations; evading challenges; intuitionism   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Categorical Foundations   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Categorical Foundations   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Categorical Foundations   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Categorical Foundations   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: categorical foundations -- an oxymoron   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: categorical non-foundations; three challenges for McLarty   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: categorical non-foundations; three challenges for McLarty   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: categorical non-foundations; three challenges for McLarty   Kanovei
• FOM: categorical non-foundations; three challenges for McLarty   Charles Silver
• FOM: Categorical pseudofoundations   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Categorical vs set theoretical foundations   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Categorical vs set theoretical foundations   John Mayberry
• FOM: Categorical vs set theoretical foundations   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Categorical vs set theoretical foundations   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Categorical vs set-theoretical foundations   John Mayberry
• FOM: Category Thry & Topos Thory:An Interpretation   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: cats/sets   Jaap van Oosten
• FOM: Challenge axioms   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Challenge axioms   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Chess quibble   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Chess quibble   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: citation   michael Detlefsen
• FOM: citation   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Clarification re my response to Riis' question   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: clarity   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Comment on Hersh/Shipman exchange   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Comment on Julio Gonzalez Cabillon   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Comments on Simpson on Hersh   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Complaints?Objections?Blame?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: computational fom   Henk Barendregt
• FOM: conventions on FOM/fom/f.o.m.   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Correction on Questions for Hersh   jshipman at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Correction to the statement of Thesis 1.   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Dawson on Aristotle   Fred Johnson
• FOM: Defense of Mayberry's charge of unprofessional polemics   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Definition of f.o.m.   John Mayberry
• FOM: definition of f.o.m.: reply to Davis   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: definition of f.o.m.; brief reply to Simpson   Martin Davis
• FOM: definition of f.o.m.; unity of human knowledge; rabble-rousing   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Definition of Platonism   Michael Hardy
• FOM: Definition of Platonism   Ed Mares
• FOM: Definition of Platonism   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: definition of Platonism   Randall Holmes
• FOM: downloadable paper for comment   Neil Tennant
• FOM: e intersect pi   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Emily Noether quote   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Explaining Simpson and McLarty to each other   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Explaining Simpson and McLarty to each other   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: f.o.m. and the concept of set   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Feferman's 10 theses   Jon Barwise
• FOM: Feferman's 10 theses   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Feferman's first thesis   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: Feferman's first thesis   Kanovei
• FOM: Feferman's first thesis   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Feferman's first thesis   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Feferman's ten theses   Arnon Avron
• FOM: First-order logic -- a query   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: FOM administrative guidelines   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: FOM based on functions   Henk Barendregt
• FOM: fom: analysis in toposes   Steve Awodey
• FOM: fom: topos theory   Steve Awodey
• FOM: FOMT/GII   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Founations of naive category theory?   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Founations of naive category theory?   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: foundations using functions   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Friedman on Realism/Philosophy   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: Friedman on Realism/Philosophy   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Friedman on Realism/Philosophy (reply)   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: Friedman on Realism/Philosophy (reply)   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Function based Ackerman's set theory?   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Functions before sets   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: FundamentalConcepts/Analysis   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: FundamentalConcepts/Analysis   Martin Davis
• FOM: FundamentalConcepts/Analysis   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: FundamentalConcepts/Analysis   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: FundamentalConcepts/Analysis (Do Harvey & I really disagree?)   Martin Davis
• FOM: FundamentalConcepts/Analysis (reply to Harvey's reply)   Martin Davis
• FOM: Further comment on the iterative conception   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: g.i.i.   Colin McLarty
• FOM: g.i.i.; f.o.m.; genetic defects; ignorance; the boxing match   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: g.i.i.; f.o.m.; genetic defects; ignorance; the boxing match   Charles Silver
• FOM: General interest of mainstream mathematics?   Josef Mattes
• FOM: GII/clarification   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: H. Fast and Loose?   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Harvey and the CH story for non-mathematicians   Martin Davis
• FOM: Harvey's corrections to me   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Hersh & consensus   Martin Davis
• FOM: Hersh & consensus   Charles Silver
• FOM: Hersh on consensus and reproducibility   Martin Davis
• FOM: Hersh on consensus and reproducibility   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Hersh on reproducibility in mathematics & religion   Martin Davis
• FOM: Hersh on reproducibility in mathematics & religion   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Hersh on reproducibility in mathematics & religion   Martin Davis
• FOM: Hersh's characterization of mathematics   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Hersh's characterization of mathematics   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Hersh's characterization of mathematics (fwd)   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Hersh's dubious doubts/Davis' examples   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Hersh, postmodernism, Rothstein   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Hersh, subjectivism, objectivity   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Hersh/Rota/Feferman/Lakatos   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Hersh/Rota/Feferman/Lakatos   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Hersh:Today's answers are. . .   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: HF's attacks superficial?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: HF's phom-questionable criticism of Cat/Topos   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: History and f.o.m.   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: History and f.o.m.   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: History of NP completeness   Stephen Cook
• FOM: hostility?   Josef Mattes
• FOM: hume   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: hume's certainty vs objective certainty   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: identification   Thomas Forster
• FOM: IHOL vs topos theory   Carsten Butz
• FOM: IHOL vs topos; Boolean algebra vs Boolean ring; topos challenges   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Improved: Hersh Fast & Loose?&Feferman's questions   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Internal and External Characterizations of Mathematics   Shipman, Joe x2845
• FOM: Internal and External Characterizations of Mathematics   Charles Silver
• FOM: Internal/External Characterizations. Response to Silver   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: introduction   Martin Davis
• FOM: Iterative conception of set   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Iterative conception of set: comment on Silver   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Iterative conception of set: comment on Silver   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: Iterative conception of set: comment on Silver   Charles Silver
• FOM: Johnson's Irreproducible Result   JoeShipman
• FOM: Johnson's Irreproducible Result   Fred Johnson
• FOM: Kline/GII   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Machover's suggestion   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Mathematical certitude; response to Shipman   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Mathematical certitude; response to Shipman   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Mathematical knowledge vs. Chess knowledge   Soren Moller Riis
• FOM: Mathematical statements about chess   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Mathematics as governing intuition by formal methods   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Mathematics as governing intuition by formal methods   Vladimir Sazonov
• FOM: Mathematics as objective subjectivity: ten theses.   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Mathematics in the imagination.   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Mayberry on justification of logic   Neil Tennant
• FOM: More on Arist. and Problem of Unity   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Morris Kline   Martin Davis
• FOM: New rules for postings   Jon Barwise
• FOM: no foundations, but real analysis   Carsten Butz
• FOM: No foundations?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Objectivity and Truth in Maths   Edwin Mares
• FOM: Objectivity and Truth in Maths   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Objectivity and Truth in Maths   Ed Mares
• FOM: Objectivity&Hersh/Krieger/Rota/Simpson   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: objectivity, postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminist etc.   eva hersh
• FOM: objectivity, postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminist etc.   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: objectivity, postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminist etc.   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: objectivity, postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminist etc.   Charles Silver
• FOM: objectivity, reality, truth   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: objectivity, reality, truth   Charles Silver
• FOM: objectivity, reality, truth   Charles Silver
• FOM: objectivity, reality, truth   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: On iterative conception   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: On the irrelevance of being well-powered   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: On the linguistic frame of mathematical reasoning   Walter Felscher
• FOM: P=NP   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: P=NP ?   Martin Davis
• FOM: Paradoxes, including Banach-Tarski ...   John Case
• FOM: ph.o.m. must impact on f.o.m.   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: PhoM vs FoM   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ NEW YORK
• FOM: Picturing categorical set theory   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Picturing categorical set theory   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver   Charles Silver
• FOM: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver   Charles Silver
• FOM: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver (fwd)   Charles Silver
• FOM: Platonism v. social constructivism, Number 3 (fwd)   Charles Silver
• FOM: please be patient   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Problem of FOM citation?   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Problem of FOM citation?   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Putnam on mathematics and possibility   Charles Parsons
• FOM: Questions for Hersh   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: Questions for Hersh   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Questions for Hersh   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: rabble-rousing; postmodernism   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Rabble-rousing?   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Re Riis' question   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Re:   Martin Davis
• FOM: Re:   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Re: Categorical "foundations"?   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Re: Categorical Foundations   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Re: Categorical foundations   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: Re: Categorical foundations   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Re: Categorical foundations   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: Re: Categorical foundations   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Re: Categorical foundations   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Re: Definition of Platonism   Karlis Podnieks
• FOM: Re: Explaining Simpson and McLarty to each other   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Re: First-order logic -- a query   Michael Thayer
• FOM: Re: First-order logic -- a query   Kanovei
• FOM: Re: Hersh/Rota/Feferman/Lakatos   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Re: Hersh/Rota/Feferman/Lakatos   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Re: Internal/External Characterizations. Response to Silver   Charles Silver
• FOM: Re: Iterative conception of set   Charles Silver
• FOM: Re: Kline/Davis/Friedman   Dana_Scott at POP.CS.CMU.EDU
• FOM: Re: Kline/Davis/Friedman (correction)   Martin Davis
• FOM: Re: Picturing categorical set theory   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Re: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Re: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver   Charles Silver
• FOM: Re: Picturing categorical set theory, reply to Silver   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Re: Questions for Hersh   Karlis Podnieks
• FOM: Re: Reply to Franzen   Torkel Franzen
• FOM: Re: set vs category as foundation   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Re: SET vs. TOP   Diskin
• FOM: Re: SETvs.TOP as toolkits.   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Re: talk radio style   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Re: three challenges for McLarty   Steve Awodey
• FOM: Re: three challenges for McLarty   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Re: three challenges for McLarty   Kanovei
• FOM: Re:categorical foundations -- an oxymoron   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Re:GII/clarification   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Real analysis in a topos   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: realism and bivalence   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Realism/philosophy   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Realism/Philosophy   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Recanting "Hersh: Today's answer. . ."   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Recommendation re exchanges   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Recommendation re exchanges   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Remark on characterization of FOM   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Remark on characterization of FOM   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Remark on characterization of FOM   Kanovei
• FOM: Remark on characterization of FOM   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: replacing the separation scheme   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Reply to Hersch and Tragesser on aliens and abstract objects   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Reply to Hersch and Tragesser on aliens and abstract objects   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Reply to Hersch and Tragesser on aliens and abstract objects   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Reply to Hersh: why isn't it a theorem?   Shipman, Joe x2845
• FOM: Reply to Hersh: why isn't it a theorem?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: reply to the "list 2" crowd   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: reply to the "list 2" crowd   Charles Silver
• FOM: reply to the "list 2" crowd   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: reply to the "list 2" crowd   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: reply to the "list 2" crowd   Charles Silver
• FOM: Representations of categories: some references   Jean-Pierre Marquis
• FOM: Response to Hersh   Moshe' Machover
• FOM: Responses to Hersh's answers to my questions   JSHIPMAN at bloomberg.net
• FOM: review of book (fwd)   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Riemann surfaces; arithmetization of analysis; "list 2"   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Riis:What is the motivation behind the Kreiselian school?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Sad news re Samuel Eilenberg (forwarded from categories@mta.ca)   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Schwartz,&SolFef's "lot from a little" maxim   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: Set Theory Axioms   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Set theory vs category theory   Soren Moller Riis
• FOM: Set theory vs category theory   Steve Awodey
• FOM: Set theory vs category theory   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Set theory vs category theory: Representability of categories   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: set vs category as foundation   Martin Davis
• FOM: set vs category as foundation   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Set vs topos debate   penelope maddy
• FOM: Set vs topos debate   Corfield, David [CES]
• FOM: Seymour-Robertson   Thomas Forster
• FOM: SF's thesis 2   michael Detlefsen
• FOM: shipman views   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Shipman, chess   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: Sol's 10 theses   michael Detlefsen
• FOM: some comments and questions, and the nature of the set concept   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Steel realism   michael Detlefsen
• FOM: suggestion to limit postings; guidelines for postings   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Suggestions to improve Hersh's definition   JOE SHIPMAN, BLOOMBERG/ NEW YORK
• FOM: Tait's query re use of "Platonism" in f.o.m.   Martin Davis
• FOM: Tennant/Hersh exchange   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: The axioms of ZF   Arnon Avron
• FOM: the cumulative hierarchy versus topos theory   Peter Aczel (Guest Valentini)
• FOM: the cumulative hierarchy versus topos theory   Colin McLarty
• FOM: the exaggerated claims of topos theory qua f.o.m.   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: The issue of realism in mathematics   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: the objectivity of general intellectual interest   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: the paradoxes   Martin Davis
• FOM: The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics   Julio Gonzalez Cabillon
• FOM: theologians   eva hersh
• FOM: Tom Lehrer   Stephen Cook
• FOM: topics to be discussed in this forum   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos = IHOL   Steve Awodey
• FOM: topos = IHOL   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Topos book   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Topos book   Colin McLarty
• FOM: topos debate; IHOL; Brouwer; model theory; Pratt; Newton   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos theory   Kanovei
• FOM: topos theory   Kanovei
• FOM: topos theory   Michael Thayer
• FOM: topos theory   Kanovei
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.; a quote from Mac Lane   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.; a quote from Mac Lane   Colin McLarty
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.; talk radio style   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.; topos theory qua pure math   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.; topos theory qua pure math   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.; topos theory qua pure math   Colin McLarty
• FOM: topos theory qua f.o.m.; topos theory qua pure math]   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: topos theory vs. sheaves   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: topos-theoretic "foundations"; logical positivism; Dupre   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: toposes vs. categories of sheaves   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: toposes vs. categories of sheaves   Colin McLarty
• FOM: Toposy-turvey   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Toposy-turvey   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Toposy-turvey   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: Toposy-turvey   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Toposy-turvey   Kanovei
• FOM: Toposy-turvey   Colin Mclarty
• FOM: Toposy-turvey   Charles Silver
• FOM: truels, reproduction, consistency   Fred Johnson
• FOM: Two "New" Paradoxes.   Robert S Tragesser
• FOM: Two "New" Paradoxes.   Kanovei
• FOM: Two axioms of set theory   Kazimir Majorinc
• FOM: Unity or disunity of science, human knowledge?   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: Unity or disunity of science, human knowledge?   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: use of 'platonism' in f.o.m.   Robert Black
• FOM: use of 'platonism' in f.o.m.   Charles Parsons
• FOM: use of 'platonism' in f.o.m.   wtait at ix.netcom.com
• FOM: various   Randall Holmes
• FOM: Vaughan Pratt's continua   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Vaughan Pratt's continua   Colin McLarty
• FOM: was Weyl on Riemann surfaces fom?   Martin Davis
• FOM: what are the most basic mathematical concepts?   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: What can X do for f.o.m.?   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: What is f.o.m.?   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: What is f.o.m.?   Robert Tragesser
• FOM: What is FOMT?   Harvey Friedman
• FOM: What is mathematics, really?, (fwd)   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: What is mathematics, really?, (fwd)   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: What is the motivation behind the Kreiselian school?   Soren Moller Riis
• FOM: What Label to apply to this philosophy?   Dan Halpern
• FOM: What label to apply to this philosphy?   Dean H. Judson
• FOM: Where do mathematical objects exist?   Martin Davis
• FOM: Where do mathematical objects exist?--Particles and waves   Vaughan Pratt
• FOM: Where do mathematical objects exist?--Particles and waves   Martin Davis
• FOM: whither mathematics; set theory; cultural studies; historicism   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Who says paradoxes don't matter   Jon Barwise
• FOM: Why Hersh can't   Kanovei
• FOM: Why Hersh can't distinguish between math and chess   Shipman, Joe x2845
• FOM: Why Hersh can't distinguish between math and chess   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: why numbers are objective (contra Feferman)   Neil Tennant
• FOM: Wigner quote   steel at math.berkeley.edu
• FOM: Wigner; MacLane; Aristotle; incommensurables; topos challenges   Stephen G Simpson
• FOM: Working Foundations (fwd)   Solomon Feferman
• FOM: YRe: Improved: Hersh Fast & Loose?&Feferman's questions   Reuben Hersh
• FOM: ZF-based category theory   Carsten Butz
• FOM: ZF-based category theory   Kanovei
• FOM: ZF-based category theory   Martin Schlottmann
• FOM: ZF-based category theory   Colin McLarty
• FOM: ZFC   Vedasystem
• No subject   Reuben Hersh
• No subject   Reuben Hersh
• No subject   Reuben Hersh
• No subject   Vaughan Pratt
• No subject   penelope maddy
• No subject   Moshe' Machover

Last message date: Sat Jan 31 16:04:27 EDT 1998
Archived on: Fri Mar 11 12:47:38 EDT 2005

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