Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/kb
List of forum topicsenRe: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=9127554&tstart=0#9127554
trying to use layers of layers was maybe to ambitios.

Therefore I come back to a easier way:

I will alter the following]]>May 26, 2013 10:56:36 AMMay 26, 2013 10:56:36 AMTrestone0Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7944641&tstart=0#7944641
in the layer logic defined in this thread there is an inconsequence: The axioms 5 and 6 for meta statements, especially that the]]>Dec 28, 2012 12:04:54 PMDec 28, 2012 12:04:54 PMTrestone1Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic (incl. Cantor)
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7640618&tstart=0#7640618
elementary everyday logic should be enough to understand my layer theory.

I myself have studied mathematics and philosophy - but]]>Jan 8, 2012 1:11:36 PMJan 8, 2012 1:11:36 PMTrestone0Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic (incl. Cantor)
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7634994&tstart=0#7634994
of course I should spell "Russell" in my last entry.

Yuors Trestone ]]>Dec 28, 2011 1:14:55 AMDec 28, 2011 1:14:55 AMTrestone1Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7634197&tstart=0#7634197
also layer theory at first look looks very similar to "Russels theory of types" it is different: For example self reference like]]>Dec 26, 2011 4:03:14 PMDec 26, 2011 4:03:14 PMTrestone0Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7588375&tstart=0#7588375
perhaps I should tell a little bit more about the motivation for my axioms:

?Axiom 1: Statements A are entities independent of]]>Oct 15, 2011 5:41:18 PMOct 15, 2011 5:41:18 PMTrestone0Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7584283&tstart=0#7584283
at first sight, layer theory might look like Russell´s theory of types, but it is different in essential aspects:

Yes, the]]>Oct 8, 2011 12:43:07 PMOct 8, 2011 12:43:07 PMTrestone1Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7579283&tstart=0#7579283
I am not so sure what are facts in layer theory:

Something could have an attribute in layer t and could not have this]]>Oct 1, 2011 7:24:33 AMOct 1, 2011 7:24:33 AMTrestone2Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7573980&tstart=0#7573980
Sep 21, 2011 7:48:06 PMSep 21, 2011 7:48:06 PMfrogfoot3Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7573455&tstart=0#7573455
I´m interested in your opinion:

If this ´changing the rules´ with the help of a new dimension would be successfull, would it]]>Sep 21, 2011 4:05:41 AMSep 21, 2011 4:05:41 AMTrestone0