Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Replies: 441   Last Post: Feb 5, 2013 6:25 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Guest

Watch Watch this User
Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Posted: Jun 12, 2009 1:10 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Topic: "Chris Menzel" helps me prove N=NP: "Inverse 19 Mathematics"
Replies: 0

Search Thread: Advanced Search


Reply to this Topic
Watch this Topic



Back to Topic List

Martin Michael Musatov

Posts: 786
Registered: 4/19/09
"Chris Menzel" helps me prove N=NP: "Inverse 19 Mathematics"
Posted: Jun 12, 2009 1:08 PM Plain Text Reply


Forwarded conversation
Subject: Re: Cantor's argument is erroneous
------------------------

From: Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:25 AM
To: marty.musatov@gmail.com


Marshall wrote:
> On May 15, 9:27 pm, lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
> >
> > So what impact does this have on the Nguyen debate? I don't
> > know whether Nguyen has access to Stoll, nor do I know whether
> > Shoenfield mentions the Deduction Theorem.

>
> Or perhaps we could all, like, learn to think for ourselves, and
> analyze arguments on their merits, instead of using pull quotes
> from books.
>
>
> Marshall

This is what I do.
----------------------------
Martin Musatov
----------
From: Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:56 AM
To: marty.musatov@gmail.com




Chris Menzel wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 11:26:35 -0600, Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca>
> said:

> >>
> >> Ok, on the assumption that you really just don't get it and are not
> >> being disingenuous, I'll give it one last try. The problem (as I and
> >> others have already noted) is that, whether you are able to
> >> acknowledge it youself, to make sense of your own claim about what is
> >> at stake, you yourself have to be presupposing a background language.

> >
> > *Where* specifically did I *insist* we don't have "_a_ background
> > language", when talking about formulas and formal systems?

>
> I'll have to admit I only inferred it from the fact that you seemed
> unwilling simply to say precisely what the language of your theory T was
> supposed to be.
>

> > Didn't I mention in the thread more than one time you can discern a
> > language from formulas, axioms, given some syntactical conventions
> > about logical symbols and variable symbols?

>
> Perhaps we can in some cases (it will not work for specifying infinite
> languages), but this is not the convention. For some reason, you want
> to ignore the fact that your approach is not standard (and not general)
> and hence you cannot justifiably assume that others are following it.
>

> >> Why? Because you are talking about a *theory* T. And (as defined by
> >> Shoenfield), a theory is a formal system and, by definition, a formal
> >> system is formal language together with a proof theory, i.e., axioms
> >> + rules of inference. So, just for definitional reason alone, your
> >> reference to a theory presupposes that there is a specific language
> >> in which it is formulated. Now, perhaps that is not what you mean by
> >> "theory", but if you wish to communicate with others about
> >> first-order theories, you have to use the conventional definitions
> >> that everyone has agreed upon or, at least, provide alternatives of
> >> your own. So if you are not using the word "theory" in a way that
> >> presupposes a background language, then you will have to provide an
> >> alternative.

> >
> > Again, "Why?" what?

>
> Er, well: why do you need explicitly to specify the language of a
> purported theory? If you only specify axioms without specifying a
> background language, you don't yet have a theory. So when you talked
> about your single axiom *theory* T, what you were saying had no fixed
> meaning (except perhaps for those following your nonstandard convention
> noted above) because you did not specify the background language. You
> may have *intended* that it be the language consisting of the
> non-logical symbols of your axiom -- i.e., as it turns out, the language
> of pure FOL= -- but, as noted, the universal practice in mathematical
> logic is to specify one's background theory explicitly; there is no
> general convention that it can be inferred from a given set of axioms.
> So you needed to say explicitly what background language you intended in
> order for your question about the theorems of your theory could be
> answered. HTH.
>

> > Again, my question to you was:
> >

> >>> So, what ... does *your* "_the language_" there refer to?
>
> Well, obviously, I can't answer specifically, of course, because I don't
> know. It refers to whatever language you intended as the background
> language for your theory which (according to the conventions of
> mathematical logic) cannot be inferred from a set of axioms.
>
> In case the point is not clear, suppose I know you have several
> computers of various sorts and you tell me that you have a computer that
> is acting up and is out of warranty and you ask me where to take it for
> diagnosis and I reply:
>
> An Apple Store, if the computer is a Mac
>
> My geek friend Smith, if the computer is a PeeCee.
>
> I obviously can't tell you *specifically* what machine "the computer"
> refers to there; it refers to whichever of *your* computers you meant.
> But there is nothing vague about my use of the term.
>

> > Obviously you must have had in your mind for it to refer to a
> > language;

>
> Yes indeed, the one you had in mind as the background language for your
> theory T.
>

> > and I might have missed your previous reference to that language (but
> > isn't that kind of normal in a dialog?). Why do you seem to have refused
> > answering _that question_, when it was asked simply for the sake of
> > clarification?

>
> Hope the above helps you understand why I, lacking telepathic skills,
> can't give you an exact answer.
>

> > If you yourself happened to get confused as to what _that question_ was
> > about, admit it and I'd rephrase it for clarity. Don't just "bury" it
> > by attacking your opponent with something else (e.g. right below)

> >> Otherwise, your claims are literally meaningless and you cannot be
> >> taken seriously.

>
> Really, this was by no means intended as an attack. It is just a simple
> fact that, if you do not use words that depart from their conventional
> meanings, claims that use those words are meaningless (more exactly,
> incapable of being interpreted).
>

> > For the nth time, Chris Menzel, my talk of formal system or theory
> > always includes an assumed background language.

>
> And, I guess, I am now to understand that it was the language of pure
> FOL=. Ok, fine, then I guess the simple answer to your question was NO.
> There are no theorems of your theory T, in the language of pure FOL=,
> that contain non-logical symbols not found in the axiom of T.
>

> > It's only when such background language is *vacuous* that I claim
> > would lead us to invalid reasoning.

>
> What is a vacuous background language? Please define.
>

> > Do you understand my talk now?
>
> I think I will if:
>
> 1. You define what a "vacuous background language" is.
>
> 2. You acknowledge that the language you intended as the background
> language for your theory T is the language of pure FOL= that counts "="
> as a logical symbol and contains no non-logical symbols.
>

> >> And that is why the answer to your question concerning what is at
> >> stake is trivial:
> >>

> >>> At stake is: if an axiom-set of a T has n non-logical symbols (n could
> >>> be infinite), then can the collection of theorems of T contain new
> >>> symbols, whether or not one stipulates these new symbols?

> >>
> >> Again:
> >>
> >> YES, if the language of T contains symbols not in any axiom of T.
> >>
> >> NO, otherwise.
> >>
> >> Reply if you want to this, but as I have been doing nothing but
> >> repeating myself trying to get you to understand this elementary point,
> >> I'm afraid it will be a (further) waste of time to respond again to you
> >> in this thread.

> >
> > Whether you've perceived you've waisted time isn't my issue here.

>
> Well, I decided to waste a little more. :-) I guess I'm still not
> confused you're a hopeless case, Nam.
>

> > You and I have nothing to disagree *about* your "No" answer here. But
> > I've always maintained your "Yes" answer above would lead to invalid
> > reasoning, which you've never counter that maintaining of mine.

>
> Now I'm lost again. I definitely missed any argument to that effect.
> So you are claiming that the language of a theory cannot contain symbols
> not found in any axiom of T, on pain of inevitable "invalid reasoning"?
> Is that *really* your claim? Since I apparently missed it in earlier
> rounds, please humor me and show me how it is that assuming (along with
> Enderton, Mendelson, Schoenfield, etc)
>
> (*) The language of a theory T can contain symbols not found in any
> axiom of T,
>
> leads to invalid reasoning. (I'm supposing that (*) is the source of
> the problem, because it is the only assumption of any substance behind
> my answer of YES above.)

(C)2009 Martin Musatov
P=NP(9)2009 Martin Musatov All Rights Reserved In Perpetuity
----------
From: Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:25 AM
To: marty.musatov@gmail.com




mikekell...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On May 27, 11:37 pm, lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
> > On May 27, 1:35 pm, mikekell...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >

> > > On May 27, 4:30 am, lwal...@lausd.net wrote:
> > > > To standard theorists, anyone who doesn't accept the proofs
> > > > is labeled a so-called "crank." They don't care how counterintuitive
> > > > the result is -- if every step of the proof is correct, then to them,
> > > > that's the end of the argument. Even if they know that something
> > > > is counterintuitive (such as vacuous truth), they seldom
> > > > acknowledge it. They'll just state that the proof is correct, and
> > > > the poster objecting to the proof is a "crank."

> > > What is counter-intuitive about Moeblee's proof?
> >
> > What's counterintuitive about it is that MoeBlee introduced the
> > symbol "+" without defining it or giving axioms for it. When I tried
> > to use the symbol "+" in another theory in this thread without
> > giving definitions or axioms for it, Newman and others criticize me
> > for using an undefined symbol.

>
> But you apparently want the symbol to behave like usual addition. And
> yet you give no axioms involving it and say it is primitve. Won't
> work.
>

> > MoeBlee's use of "+" is valid if and only if my use of "+" is valid.
>
> You're trying to use it to represent something like usual addition.
> That requires axioms and/or definitions. Moeblee's proof only cares
> that it is a 2-place operator. That's the difference.
>
> For what it's worth, this was a common complaint of Tony Orlow's. He
> liked to do things like "declare a unit infinity" as a primitive and
> give no axioms for it, then if this was questioned he would point out
> that standard theory uses undefined primitives, and it was very unfair
> if he wasn't allowed to use them too. Not a very persuasive argument,
> I have to say.

Book: Here several methods of investigation were examined and proved
fruitful. Substantive use of semantic spaces have put forward the
approach according to picture similar to the art of Surikov, Borisov-
Musatov, Somov, or Kustodiev. Although Cantor and Mischel do not
theorize about the origin of these:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7077507/Book -

"Nothingandall+"
----------
From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:59 AM
To: marty.musatov@gmail.com


Martin Musatov wote:
Nam Nguyen wrote:
> Herbert Newman wrote:
> >
> > "Why do you imagine, as you seem to do, that there is any point arguing
> > with [a crank]?" (Torkel Franzen, sci.math, 12 Jan. 2005)

>
> Indeed.
>
> --
> "To discover the proper approach to mathematical logic,
> we must therefore examine the methods of the mathematician."
> (Shoenfield, "Mathematical Logic")

The C is a new mathematical constant, Thanks Sci math , we a few
untrained mathematicians at inverse 19 learnt a lot about mathematics
from your postings and your silence and this has been developed in a
few hours over a few days in between work. Our purpose is not as much
as provoking discussion , but the ability for us to post and issue and
learn from the "Silence of the Lambs". Dimension is silent, so is the
space matrix at 19. Note: That this constant cannot be reduced to
Null zero and n(2Pi^2-0.75) is constant curve for that value of n
http://groups.google.co.in/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/e62f63...
contains the words "Red Dragon" - The sequel to "The Silence of The
Lambs"... And it was posted (or at least to me appeared in the topic
list AFTER my previous post). In breakdown, I posted a P=NP Genesis/
Riemann post containing mention of a sequel to a film title which then
appeared in a new post (to me at least), AFTER. Are we in a vacuum or
is there logic at play in this anomaly? I appreciate any sound
feedback, the more thoughtful and considerate the better. Please do
not make fun or ridicule this sincere attempt to explore a truth.
----------
From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:40 AM
To: marty.musatov@gmail.com


> On Jun 10, 4:42 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > MoeBlee wrote:
> > > On Jun 8, 8:27 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >> Giving "exact formulation" of a rule isn't necessarily same as defending
> > >> the application of it is valid! Do you understand that?

> >
> > > There is no "defense" needed. After an exact formulation has been
> > > given (that is, the rule is recursive, or, more plainly, merely
> > > clerical to apply) then it is purely mechanical or clerical to check
> > > whether the rule has been correctly applied.

> >
> > Note your phrase "purely mechanical or clerical". If you check to
> > see if a rule has been correctly applied in a "purely mechanical"
> > manner, then non-logical symbols must *mechanically* come from
> > the syntactical axioms: not from a mind where they're only stipulated!

>
> Why? This is really your central point, but you've never explained
> _why_ it must be that the non-logical symbols comes from the
> syntactical axioms. In fact, the language is simply specified, and
> then we know what a WFF is. There's no need to 'derive' the language
> from anything.
>
> I don't know what the talk about "mind" is. Specifying a formal
> language is no more concrete or abstract than specifying a set of
> axioms. But it seems to be giving you some serious trouble in
> comprehension. Serious trouble.
>

> > > Checking for correct
> > > application is a mere matter of applying a recursive procedure in
> > > pattern matching.

> >
> > Right. As long as what contains the patterns is valid in the first place.

>
> And how do we know what "patterns" are valid?
>
> My answer would be something like: we specify the formal language, the
> axioms, and the rules of inference. Then we know a wff is one that is
> in the language. And a theorem is anything obtained from an axiom or
> another theorem by a rule of inference.
>
> What's your answer?
>

> > For example, if you're formulating the theory T = {x+y=0} where L(T) = L(0,+).
> > Though there might be more, the following would be axioms of T:
> >
> > (1) x+y=0
> > (2) x=x
> >
> > But what about the formula:
> >
> > (3) (Axyz[((xoy)/(yoz)) -> xe(x*(z/x))] -> Atuv[((tou)/(uov))) -> te(t*(v/t))] \/
> > ExEy[~(x=y)]
> >
> > Would you think (3) could be *validly* proven?

>
> No, because (3) contains symbols not in the language of T. In fact,
> (3) is not a wff at all.
>
> It's hard to see what the relevance of this question is, since all
> formulae in the proof that was under discussion were wffs in the
> language of the theory under discussion.


Dear Sci.Math,

Consider this thread an extension of my proof P=NP, and add to it this
text.

Preface all of this with the knowledge all is fair in love and war,
and now coldly mathematics.

Regards, Musatov


Musatov wrote:
> As to the book of Psalms and The Song of Songs, there is a course to
> the neverending. It constantly evolves as parameters change, but still
> always the same path as we what we seek to define we by nature of our
> observing change. To this there is no logic, no volume of thought,
> just words to read, and numbers to granulate. And to truth, a gentle
> stream. To a word, from a number, from a number to a word, from one to
> infinity.
>
> There is no debate, no second guess. No conjecture, or oversight. No
> exclusion applies, and no theories hold the awesome power it
> contains.
>
> Infinity's loose but rigid, flexible but firm, in evolution is
> universal right. In form and function, across language and guild, the
> heir apparent us. Beauty is truth and truth beauty but I suspect this
> is what may be meant by these words.
>
> It is not caste in doom failure, but refined like aromatic resin, good
> gold from a furnace. To define a flaw is to label a base for words and
> numbers make their case.
>
> At any rate, no matter the claim, they do not belong to me. I did not
> choose them, nor did they choose me. Yet always the unsolved case
> remains. Those decisions we make today we base in what we may learn
> tomorrow. In this futures are made.
>
> --Anonymous (Composed in honor of Bernhard Riemann)
>
> Preface: "E. Pluribus Unum," is Latin, and translates to ?The Many
> Become One."
>
>
> ................In.................[1]........
>
> In sum, the book is recommended as an introduction to the more ...(?)
> the minimum bit size of a P-proof of ?. They called a proof ...
> without assuming at least P = NP, we cannot rule out the existence of
> a polynomial time ... razborov@genesis.mi.ras.ru. Lev D.
> Beklemishev. ...

[1]
http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/
Disseminate%3Fhandle%3Deuclid.bsl/1182353876%26view%3Dbody%26content-
type%3Dpdf_1
> [P Versus NP]So, ?Genesis 24:1?3 and 9? means the book of Genesis,
> chapter 24, verses 1 through 3 ...... (In a strictly Quantum
> Naturalization [P=NP] novel proof sense). ...

[2]
http://pversusnp.wordpress.com/
> Is P Versus NP Formally Independent?P = NP asks for an efficient
> procedure that finds a short proof. ...... Section 2 is the book of
> Cohen

[13].
For a definition of Cutting Planes and other proof
> systems .... tion, manuscript, 2003. genesis.mi.ras.ru/?razborov/res
> k.ps. ...

[3]
http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/pnp.pdf
>
> stdin (ditroff)ry of claimed resolutions to the question of P versus
> NP. Section 2 is then de- ... umn: an actual NP-completeness proof
> (one of the two most requested unpub- ... based on the Old Testament
> Book of Genesis.) We will of course honor re- ...

[4]
http://www.research.att.com/~dsj/columns/col20.pdf
>
> The Gutnick Edition Chumash - Book of Genesis: With Rashi's ...... it
> would be sufficient proof to Avraham that the time had now come
> for ... 30, p. 82//.) o While Adam and Chavah were the parents of all
> mankind, ...<b>book</b>s.google.com/<b>book</b>s?isbn=0972501088
>
> Greatest Mystery in Modern Science?The genesis of ihis fourth Big idea
> was the ho-hum obser- ... tractable (P=NP in computer parlance!, proof-
> finding will be ... When you purchase a book from Amazon, the
> assurance that your transaction is secure is ...

[5]
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/pubs/ipod.pdf
>
> Could Your iPod Be Holding the Greatest Mystery in Modern Science?
> Tractability The genesis of this fourth Big Idea was the ho-hum
> observation ... The twin reality of hard proof-finding and easy proof-
> checking is hardly an MTV-induced aberration. ... Indeed, the day the
> Jurassic-1K are shown to be tractable (P=NP in ... When you purchase a
> book from Amazon, the assurance that your ...

[6]
http://www.tnlab.ice.uec.ac.jp/nhc06/material/files/2701.html
>
> Infinite Order Logic and the Church-Turing Thesis6 Jun 2006 ...
> Corollary 5 P=NP in LISP. Proof: Randomness is an infinite order
> process and LISP can express infinity. ... I just read his book. How
> do I know all these things? ... 2.7 Future Work: The NP Computer and
> Genesis ...

[7]
http://web.media.mit.edu/~vyzo/papers/computability.pdf
>
> Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Book Review: Primaeval
> History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis ... (JSJ Supplement
> Series, 66; Leiden: E.J. Brill), p. xx +. 408. Cloth, n.p. ISBN
> 9-0041-1658-3. .... need for more rigorous proof-reading. Betsy
> Halpern-Amaru ...

[8]
http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/1/78.pdf
>
> Book Review: The Millennium Problems: The Seven Greatest Unsolved ...
> 24 May 2000 ... who tells us that ?the proof would shed light on a
> fundamental aspect of nature. ... genesis of each problem and
> developing its back- ground, can be grouped together. ... other six
> millennium problems, but P versus NP ...

[9]
http://www.ams.org/notices/200308/rev-blank.pdf
>
> LNCS 3142 - Feasible Proofs and Computations: Partnership and Fusion
> universally agree on what is a proof and what is a computation. ....
> sion of P = NP. In particular, we will address one approach to this
> question based .... subject was treated in Buss's book

[15]
which
> still remains a very good source for a .... Manuscript available at
[10]
http://www.genesis.mi.ras.ru/?razborov, 2002. ...[11]http://
www.springerlink.com/index/HWBD96PN120LBDBN.pdf
>
> Also available at [12]http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week226.html ...10
> Feb 2006 ... For example, Chapter 2 of this book starts out by
> defining "strong" and .... and

[13]
http://genesis.mi.ras.ru/~razborov/int.ps
The basic point of this paper ... So, if "P is not equal to NP"
> is true, it has no natural proof. ...
[13]
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twf_ascii/week226
>
> Full text of "The book of Genesis; critical edition of the
> Hebrews ...The Ephesian Artemis with her many breasts {p'W)
> illustrates the same idea. nnn rssi ...... On the other hand, it is
> perhaps more natural to read 20 np''1 inniy^l, ...... Jacob had al-
> ready given practical proof of what he could do, v. ...... O.T.
> Genesis. Hebrew. 1232 1896 I896 The book of Genesis PLEASE DO NOT ...
>

[14]
http://www.archive.org/stream/bookofgenesiscri00balluoft/bookofgenesiscri00balluoft_djvu.txt
>
> GENESIS of PUBLIC KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS Part 2: The RSA Algorithm then all
> NP are in P meaning that one solution ..... Phone Book. Encryption
> Key. [ public ]. Decryption Key. [ secret ]. George : bfh467rÛu%+.
> Alice : /&'^Grtwe35 ... him(her)self as a proof of authorship of the
> contents of a document. ...

[15]
http://crypty.iyte.edu.tr/crypty2003/tutorials/tutorial1_2_Dr_Koltuksuz.pdf
>
> James Kent's Commentaries: Of the History, Progress, and Absolute ...
> 3. p. 40. insists, that a primitive state of man existed before the
> establishment of civil ... and temporary occupancy the only title; but
> he gives no sufficient proof of the fact. The book of Genesis, which
> he justly regards as the most ancient and venerable of ... N. P. 335.
> 16. Co. Litt. 309. Dig. 41. 1. 20. ...

[16]
http://lonang.com/exlibris/kent/kent-34.htm
>
> The Virgin Birth of Christ: Prophecies in Genesis and Isaiah
> The critics take Isaiah's concluding pronouncement to the king as
> proof that he ... Jay P. Green, Sr., The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew/
> English, 3 vols. ... See John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters
> 1-39 (Grand Rapids, Mich. ... J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of
> Christ (n.p.: Harper & Row, Publishers, ...[17]

http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/VirginBirth/Isaiah.html
>
> Archives and Special Collections, University of Mississippi Red
> Dragon . New York: Putnam's Sons, 1981. Uncorrected Proof. [book] ...
> [1999]. Announcement of Genesis Press' publication of Deadly
> Sacrifice. [document] ... Death on Scurvy Street. New York: E. P
> Dutton & Company, 1929. [book]. Ben Ames Williams. Death on Scurvy
> Street. N.p.: Continental Books, c.1929. [book] ...

[18]
http://hermes.lib.olemiss.edu/mystery/bibliography.asp
>
> REVIEWS and more than 500 pages, a book that is highly readable and
> informative but not without .... (?) the minimum bit size of a P-proof
> of ?. They called a proof ... without assuming at least P = NP, we
> cannot rule out the existence of a polynomial time ...
> razborov@genesis.mi.ras.ru. Lev D. Beklemishev. ...

[19]
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/0802/0802-005.ps
>
> The Creation According to the Midrash Rabbah
> The proof-verse from Joshua not only shows ... R. Ilfa identifies that
> book with Genesis because the context of Balaam's wish to die the
> death of the ...<b>book</b>s.google.com/<b>book</b>s?isbn=1930143400
>
> Theoretical Computer Science : On the hardness of
> allocating ...Journal/book title ... so that the genesis and the
> relevance of the problem can be better appreciated. .... Proof. In
> [13] it is shown that a feasible solution R: V 2e attaining the
> optimum of c i aec CO can be computed in 0(Mn C Mn + C ) time. ... In
> this section we show that the answer is negative, unless P = NP. ...
>

[20]
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030439759800156X
>
> Ramin's Ponderings
> In so many words, the P = NP question has to do with whether or not
> some ... In that humorous science fiction book "The Hitchhiker's Guide
> to the Galaxy. ...

[21]
http://ramin-honary.blogspot.com/
> ACM: Ubiquity - Random Thoughts and Prime Numbers
> It is instructive to note that many concepts crucial in this proof
> were ... then afterwards the teacher would show us what is called the
> Book Proof. ... This type of question is basically the genesis of the
> field of computational complexity. The question of NP versus P is
> whether or not anything that has a short ...

[22]
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/interviews/j_cai_1.html
>
> THE GENESIS OF THE YOUNG COSIMA: HENRY HANDEL RICHARDSON'S
> MOST ...result is a book almost devoid of imaginative and descriptive
> writing. Its matter is ..... During the proof stage she said: "... I
> wish Oh God I'd .... See letter to Nettie Palmer dated 6 May 1939, N.
> P., p. 201. 9. 24 November 1929. ...[23]

http://www.informaworld.com/index/795114923.pdf
>
> Book Review Book Review. Andy Clark*. University of Edinburgh. Genesis
> Machines: The New Science of Biocomputing. ... (p. 112). The problem
> is interesting in that it belongs to the class of problems that are
> said to be NP-complete?that is, to involve search spaces that grow
> very .... As a proof of principle, one researcher ...

[24]
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/artl.2009.15.2.15206
>
> Genesis Bibliography--Matthews File
> Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. ...... _____,
> "Presenting Genesis 1, Constructively and Deconstructively," Proof 21
> (2001), 1-22. .... Lemche, N.P., "The Chronology in the Story of the
> Flood," JSOT 18 (1980), ...

[25]
http://courses.missouristate.edu/VictorMatthews/bib/GENA.html - 144k
> ................In.................[3].......Sealed||¤¤¤?%[
> [-][+][I][N][«][}>}][R][I][E][M][A][N][N]

----------
From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:30 AM
To: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@hotmail.com>




MoeBlee wrote:
> On Jun 10, 7:41 am, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> writes:
> > > Alan Smaill wrote:
> > > >>> On Jun 8, 5:23 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> From the lone axiom system {x=y} written in L(e,+) , one
> > > >>>> *can't _validly_* apply rule of inferenece to prove Axy(x+e=0).

> > > >>> But from the lone axiom "Axy x=y" in a langauge with '+' and '0' as,
> > > >>> respectively a 2-place function symbol and 0-place function symbol, we
> > > >>> may derive "Axy x+y=0", as I've shown you. Do you still contest this?

> > > >> I remember your meta disproof involves something about
> > > >> "proof in a language" or "natural deduction". _If_ they are the _same_
> > > >> proof system as FOL= (and I'm not saying they are) I don't think
> > > >> you've translated your disproof into the familiar terminologies
> > > >> of FOL= syntactical proof. If they're not, then you
> > > >> know my position, I'm not interested in it, in this thread at this time.

> > > > btw, I posted a proof in Shoenfield's own syntactical calculus
> > > > for FOL= of the formula in question, from the single non-logical axiom,
> > > > on the assumption that the language contains + and 0 of the appropriate
> > > > syntactic classes.
> > > > I don't recall any comment from you on that proof.

> >
> > > Much as I'd like it's impossible for me to respond to all posts, so
> > > I'm sorry if I miss any post, but it's not my desire to do so.

> >
> > > Anyway, did you mean the post on May 21st where you had the below?
> >
> > I did mean the proof below.
> >
> > But you have snipped a crucial part that post;
> > it's important for the proof you cite to note that I had
> > already stated, as I did in the post that you are replying
> > to, that I make the *assumption* that the language contains + and 0.
> >
> > In this I simply follow Shoenfield, who says "The first part of a formal
> > system is its language". And "To specify a language, we must first of
> > all specify its symbols." So I take the language to have the
> > non-logical symbols +,0; and I made that assumption explicit.

>
> Note to Nam: This all crystal clear. What is most UNclear is what in
> the world is blocking you from understanding this.
>
> MoeBlee


Hi = Moeblee,

Do you understand this?

Thank you!

Musatov

|Dear "Hope", |
|
|
|Please do not cease contact. I apologize if |
|my repost of our correspondence betrayed |
|your trust or impacted your assessment of |
|my character. I stand by my actions and can
|only hope it was the right decision to make. I
|thought generally of the mentality of groups
|and group behavior in sociology and.
|psychology and specifically a TED
|(Technology, Education, and Design) video.
|had seen on the manifests of evil in
|anonymity and groups. [Link: http://
|www.ted.com/talk/
philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html] Based on the textbooks
I have read and ||this testimony of expert consulted in the |
aforementioned video, the best chance at
|ending this manifest (or "digital holocost" if
|left unchecked) is to immediately tear down |the walls between the
decent bystanders and
| the intervening. (You) Being one brave
| enough to speak to the defense of one being | mistreated is such a
rare occurence in front
|of large groups and you are brilliant
|combination of logic, decency, intelligence,
| sensitivity, and kindness. My heart rejoices
| and my faith in the fundamental goodness
| of people has been reaffirmed in you. By
| your actions you set a fine example and
|deserve praise, (minus the accusations,
| insults and negative consequence I can only |assume exist since you
referred to me as"not |your leper" but "their leper" and feeling
|the need to assert you were "not unclean" for |touching me with
"respect" in your words.
|
| I must ask, why do you refer to me as a
| "leper"? I do not understand. Based on the | situation you
sparked in me a curiosity I can
| only identify akin to "Sherlock Holmes"
|worthy in analysis. Indulge me this, and offer
| me logic (if you must even in a hypothetical |sense--given the
circumstanced I will take |||||what I can get).
|
|1)Leprocy does not exist (except for
|extremely rare cases, which I only assert
|based on an episode of "House") and...
|
|
|2) You have never met me.
|
|3) And I do not have leprocy.
|
|Conclusion: I can only rationally assume this |was an expression you
made for some other |situation or context you were not openly
|referring to.
|
|Further analysis and consideration reveals:
|
|A)In the context you directed your comment
|to "Pharisees" (your words in quotes).
|
|B) Pharisees mostly refer to ancient Biblical
|text and groups.
|
|Conclusioon:
|
|Since I do not have leprocy and the disease
|is extremely rare and you have never met
|me and 'Pharisees' almost always in modern |language refers to an
ancient religious sect, I |can only rationally assume you were not
|referring to literal "Pharisees" like you could
|not have been rationally referring to literal |"leprocy".
|
|So my questions for you:
|
|1) What parallel dynamics (the physical
|persons and the relationship) between me
|personally and the community in context
|warrant the use of the term? How does it
|apply and why?
|
|2) Who are the "real" counterparts to the |"Pharisees"?
|
|3) What physical conditions exist on USENET |to make one a "leper"?
(Since the physical
|conditions for real leprocy do not exist there
|has to be other physical conditions present
|which define a "leper" in this context. Please |list them.
|
|4) Since I am not physically "unclean" (in the |rational ommission/
absence of leprocy, how
|could you possibly be "unclean" simply be |"touching me with
respect" (your words) on
|the Internet? Well since a) no physical
|leprocy is or can be rationally present and b)
| it is impossible to physically catch an absent |disease by
electronically typing a kind
|message on behalf of one being mistreated,
|there is more going on here. The question is
|what conditions in the context of your
|comments and the physical reality define |"clean" and "unclean"? In
other words how
|could and why would one be considered |"unclean" for speaking out in
defense of one |being ridiculed by electronic messages?
|
|
|5) Define "clean" and "unclean" as physical
|conditions as they exist on USENET.
|
|6) What about me (Martin Michael Musatov,
|Caucasian male, D.O.B. 9/23/1978, Unity
|Hospital, Fridley, MN, 55432) have I done to
|take on the characteristics, or what physical
|characteristics or conditions existed or do
|exist at the time of your comments to
|rationally fullfill the requirements of a |"leper"?
|
|7) What does the group (the USENET
|community -- or a portion of them) gain by
|not only mistreating a "leper" (in this
|context) but inspiring a defender of a "leper" |to assert they are
different than me?
|
|"THE TIPPING POINT": (To quote Malcolm
|Gladwell, an author I am fond of)
|
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[*******
$50,000
|Question********What logical conditions
|exist to completely explain in full context the |underlying anaolgy
of the "leper" and the |"pharisees"?*****************************
|
|Answer here:
|
|[Please answer $50,000 (?) above this
|comment]
|
**************************************************************************************
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|
<<<<two-edged s/||word>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|You said it so you must have the answer to
|this question and it would be entirely
|irrational for you to not have the answer to
|this question since you are indeed the one
|who made it.
|
| I do not see the literal reference or abstract
|comparison here, so I beg you kindly to
| please explain all these puzzling words and
| place them and your reference in clear
| simple terms. Will you do this for me? Can
|you do this?
|
|
|::::::::::END STRICTLY LOGIC QUESTIONS TO
|||BE
|ANSWERED::::::::::::::
|
|::::::::::BEGIN THEOLOGICAL
||ARGIUMNENT::::::::THE LAW:::::::::::: (Atheists, |
|please look away if you are easily annoyed
|by illogical Christians*)
|
|*I am not saying anything just sparing
| *some* Atheists the pain of reading my
|words. But, if you are an atheist and want to
|take straight math/logic game to the court in |my defense, by all
means, please....I revere
|mad math/
|logic skills and appreciate a good Spock-like |"shrewdness" (this is
a compliment not a dig)
|++++++++++++++++++++++
|Charges against against "Pharisees":
|++++++++++++++++++++++
| If you are a God fearing Jew or gentile I
| assert it is your duty to explain this situation | and testify to
the truth. For the bible says, "It | is the Glory of God to conceal a
matter." By
| the word of The Lord, you take from the
| glory of God by your|by your ommission and | if you do not explain,
you are asserting you
|do not fear God. For the Word of The Lord
|does not say, "It is
| the glory of a man to conceal a matter."
|
|The reason this is clear to me is by shedding |light and clarifying
this matter concealed
|your actions not only comfort one being
|mistreated but also prevent further
|mistreatment of God fearing people (all of
| them) by not taking from the Glory of God
| by concealing this matter.
|
|Scripture forward:
|Chronicles 11:
|
|.......................................................23And he
|struck down an Egyptian who was seven
|and a half(d) feet tall. Although the Egyp-
|tian had a spear like a weaver's rod in his
|hand, Benaiah went against him with a
|club. He snatched the spear from the Egyp-
|tian's hand and killed him with his own
|spear. 24Such were the exploits of Benaiah
|son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as
|the three mighty men. 25He was held in
|greater honor than any of the Thirty, but
|he was not included among the Three. And
|David put him in charge of his bodyguard.
|
| 26The mighty men were:
| Asahel the brother of Joab,
| Elhanan son of Dodo from Bethle-
| hem,
| 27Shammoth the Haroite,
| Helez the Pelonite,
| 28Ira son of Ikkesh from Tekoa,
| Abiezer from Anathoth,
| 29Sibbecai the Hushathite,
| Ilai the Ahohite,
| 30Maharai the Netophathite,
| Heled son of Baanah the Netopha-
| thite,
| 31Ithai son of Ribai from Gibeah in
| Benjamin,
| Benaiah the Pirathonite,
| 32Hurai from ravines of Gaash,
| Abiel the Arbathite,
| 33Azmaveth the Baharumite,
| Eliahba the Shaalbonite,
| 34the sons of Hashem the Gizonite,
| Jonathan son of Shagee the Hara-
| rite,
| 35Ahiam son of Sacar the Hararite,
| Eliphal son of Ur,
| 36Hepher the Mekerathite,
| Ahijah the Pelonite,
| 37Hezro the Carmelite,
| Naari son of Ezbai,
| 38Joel the brother of Nathan,
| Mibhar son of Hagri,
| 39Zelek the Ammonite,
| Naharai the Berothite, the armor-
| bearer of Joab son of Zeruiah,
| 40Ira the Ithrite,
| Gareb the Ithrite,
| 41Uriah the Hittite,
| Zabad son of Ahlai,
| 42Adina son of Shiza the Reubenite,
| who was chief if the Reubenites,
| and the thirty with him,
| 43Hanan son of Maacah,
| Joshaphat the Mithnite,
| 44Uzzia the Ashteratite,
| Shama and Jeiel the sons of Ho-
| tham the Aroerite,
| 45Jedaiel son of Shimri,
| his brother Joha the Tizite,
| 46Eliel the Mahavite,
| Jeribai and Joshavaih the sons of
| Elnaam,
| Ithmah the Moabite,
| 47Eliel, Obed and Jaasiel the Mezo-
| baite.
|
|<i>Warriors Join David</i>
|
| ___ _ __
| / | / _ \ These were the men
| /_ /| | /_ / \ | who came to David
| | | / / at Ziklag, while he
| | | / / was ban-
| | | / /
| | | / /
| | | / /
| _ | |__ / /_____
| |______| |________|
| | ished from the
| | presence of Saul
| | son of Kish
| | (they were among the
| | warriors who helped
| | him in battle; 2they
| | were armed with bows
| | and were able to shoot
| | or to sling stones right-
| | handed or left-handed;
| | they were kinsman of
| | Saul from the tribe of
| | Benjamin):
| |
| | 3Ahiezer their chief
| | and Joash the sons
| | of Shemaah the
| | Gibeathite; JezIiel
| | and Pelet the sons
| | Azmaveth; Bera-
| | cah, Jehu the
| | Anathothite, 4and
| | Ish-
| | maiah the
| | Gibeonite, a mighty
| | man among Thirty,
| | who was a leader of
| | the Thirty; Jeremiah,
| | Jahaziel, Joha-
| | nan, Jozabad the
| | Gederathite,
| | 5Eluzai,
| | Jerimoth, Bealiah,
| | Shephatiah the
| | Haruphite;
| | 6Elkanah,
| | Isshiah, Azarel,
| | Joezer and
| | Jashobeam
| | the Korahites;
| | 7and Joelah and
| | Zeba-
| | diah the sons of
| | Jeroham from Gedor.
| |
| |
| |
| | ______________________
| |
| | a8 Or the Millo
| | b11 Possibly a variant
| | of Jashon-Baal
| |c11 or Thirty; some
| | Septuagint
| | manuscripts Three
| | (see also 2 Samuel
| | 23:8)
| |*d23 Hebrew five cubits
| | (about 2.3 meters)*
|I "hope" you do not mind the adopted alias I
|have assigned you. I can only assume you
|are a female given your kindness and
|sensitivity, but in case you are a male I
|apologize if this offends you, and assert
| merely, my appreciation for your aid.
|
|A (final) afterthought:
|
|I read you wrote, "God bless". Thank you.
|God has blessed you.
|We are blessed to have
|family.
|
|May I share a prayer/poem I wrote some time |ago? (Again, I feel
compelled to note: I hope I |do not drive you away with my
persistence
|and driven will; I must say despite the
|intensity and odd form some of all of this
|takes from time to time, I am level headed
|and reasonable, but above all this I am kind.)
|
|Untitled Prayer
|
|God will you guide me?
|Lord will you lead me?
|Grace will you hide me,
|from those who decieve me?
|Love will you chide me,
|but please never leave me?
|God will you guide me?
|Lord will you lead me?
|
|I will leave it on you to contact me from this
|point. (Unless of course something of great
|relevancy changes and I have something of
|tangible significance to share)
|
|There is great truth out there and much
|remains unseen. Given the state of the world |and the word of God in
heaven I can only
|hope to do what is right with the gifts he has
| given me. I feel this project is a direction in
|my life he planned for me. I do not know
|where it will lead or if I will succeed but there |is a God in
heaven, kind and truthful.
| And he has shown me a way from the. Day I |was born to find his
purpose for me. As I
|have been known to say, "If you can ever
|imagine yourself at a place in your life where |you could be
completely content and happy,
|take peace in the knowledge when you arrive |you could not have
gotten there any other
|way."
|
|Best Regards,
|
|Martin Michael Musatov
|(¤¤¤)=(symbol)(mmm)
|
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Martin Musatov" <marty.musatov@gmail.com>

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:21:37
To: Hope Clinic<hope9900@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: 2 Pi^2 - 0.75 = INVERSE/EXVERSE CONSTANT


Dear "Hope",

Seriously, your time to write me has meant a great deal to me.
Strangers is fine, but I need not a name to recognize a kinship or
friendship or kindness.

While I appreciate your fierce sentiment in my defense, I believe
people are basically good and only hope the ones who acted such a way
only did so because I was misunderstood. You do not need to speak
harshly of them on my account. I forgive them and wish them no ill
will. Truth is what I seek.

Bertrand Russell said some brilliant things, one of them being,
"Without God, life has no meaning." This floored me coming from an
atheist.

I am religious and I take the value of your words to heart. May I ask
what if anything prompted you in this reference? Am I not still in my
soul? I assure I am.

This last section in your thread:

"be still Musatov, find the mathematics in
the whistling wind , happiness in the garden, and watch the loon for
hours ,
and be still and greater wisdom will come to you"

It puzzles me. I have seen so many statements like this at the end of
threads and they seem to follow intense debates by more "senior" level
posters. Can you tell me what purposes they serve?

Keep in touch, (I hope)

Martin Musatov
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Hope Clinic" <hope9900@verizon.net>

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:02:42
To: <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2 Pi^2 - 0.75 = INVERSE/EXVERSE CONSTANT


You have my respect and wishes and sincerely so. I will prefer to
remain
annonymous even though you choose other wise purely because I am very
independant and I do not have any regular allegiences but my family.
I just
want to see this current project through with a web site and then I am
done,
I have lots of other hobbies. I am very honest , I do not keep any
single
contact with no body, that is the way I live, life is less complex
that way.
Simplicity is genius, a quote from an English mathematician Bertrand
Russel.. You may have good ideas Musatov , and you seem to be decent,
but as
the Bible states , be "still in the soul". If you succeed in your
ventures
let me know, otherwise we should stay as strangers, nothing personal ,
I am
that way. If I succeed I will contact you,---- but those other
bastards at
the Forum, I gave them their due, be still Musatov, find the
mathematics in
the whistling wind , happiness in the garden, and watch the loon for
hours ,
and be still and greater wisdom will come to you


Be still in the soul Musatov, be still, God bless you . Find success!


hope 9900

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Musatov" <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
To: "Hope Clinic" <hope9900@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: 2 Pi^2 - 0.75 = INVERSE/EXVERSE CONSTANT


> Thank you for your kindness. May I ask your name? (If not, I respect your
> anonymity)
>
> Basically, I have an idea to leverage large sets of data to help people.
>
>

----------
From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:31 AM
To: marty.musatov@gmail.com


Date Subject Author
5/27/09
Read Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/27/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
5/27/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/27/09
Read Answer to Tim Little, I. Walker et al.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/27/09
Read Re: Answer to Tim Little, I. Walker et al.
Virgil
5/27/09
Read Re: Answer to Tim Little, I. Walker et al.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/27/09
Read Re: Answer to Tim Little, I. Walker et al.
Virgil
5/27/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/28/09
Read Re: Answer to Tim Little, I. Walker et al.
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/28/09
Read Re: Answer to Tim Little, I. Walker et al.
Virgil
5/28/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
5/28/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
5/28/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jesse F. Hughes
5/29/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
5/29/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
5/29/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jesse F. Hughes
6/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jesse F. Hughes
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Ralf Bader
6/1/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/1/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jesse F. Hughes
6/1/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
6/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Denis Feldmann
6/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Owen Jacobson
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Ralf Bader
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/13/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
2/5/13
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
7/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
scriber77@yahoo.com
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Owen Jacobson
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/17/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/18/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/18/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/18/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/18/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/18/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/18/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
6/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
6/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jesse F. Hughes
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Marshall
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/8/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/8/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/9/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/9/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/9/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/9/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/10/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/10/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/10/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/10/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/10/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/10/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Rainer Rosenthal
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/22/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/25/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/25/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/1/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
7/1/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Rainer Rosenthal
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Rainer Rosenthal
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
5/28/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
5/29/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/29/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/31/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/31/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/22/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/25/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/25/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
MeAmI.org
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
7/1/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
herb z
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
herb z
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Aatu Koskensilta
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Daryl McCullough
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/4/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Aatu Koskensilta
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jesse F. Hughes
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
7/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Ralf Bader
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
G. Frege
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
7/2/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
7/6/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
6/8/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/8/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/9/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
6/9/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Jack Markan
6/9/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
herb z
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Owen Jacobson
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
William Hughes
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
YBM
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/19/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/22/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/25/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/25/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest
6/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
7/1/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/7/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/11/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Dik T. Winter
6/3/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
george
5/29/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/29/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/31/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/31/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/31/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest
5/27/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/28/09
Read Who introduced false logic?
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/28/09
Read Re: Who introduced false logic?
Virgil
5/30/09
Read Re: Who introduced false logic?
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/30/09
Read Re: Who introduced false logic?
Virgil
5/30/09
Read Re: Who introduced false logic?
Virgil
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
5/30/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Ralf Bader
5/27/09
Read Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/27/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
David C. Ullrich
5/27/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
5/27/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Guest
5/27/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/28/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/28/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
5/29/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Peter Webb
5/29/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
5/29/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/29/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
5/29/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Peter Webb
5/30/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/30/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
5/30/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Peter Webb
5/31/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/31/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
5/31/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/31/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Peter Webb
5/31/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
6/1/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/1/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
David Bernier
6/1/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Jack Markan
6/1/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
6/2/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
george
6/1/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/1/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
Virgil
6/2/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
george
6/2/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
george
6/2/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
george
6/3/09
Read Re: Natural numbers are uniquely defined
george
6/12/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest
2/5/13
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Owen Jacobson
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Owen Jacobson
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/15/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
MeAmI.org
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/16/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/18/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/18/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Virgil
6/20/09
Read Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Guest

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.