<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>










<rss version="2.0" xmlns:jf="http://www.jivesoftware.com/xmlns/jiveforums/rss">
    <channel>
        <title>Math Forum</title>
        <link>http://mathforum.org/kb</link>
        <description>List of forum topics</description>
        <language>en</language>


        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=9127554&amp;tstart=0#9127554</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>trying to use layers of layers was maybe to ambitios.<br><br>Therefore I come back to a easier way:<br><br>I will alter the following]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>May 26, 2013 10:56:36 AM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>May 26, 2013 10:56:36 AM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7944641&amp;tstart=0#7944641</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>in the layer logic defined in this thread there is an inconsequence:<br>The axioms 5 and 6 for meta statements, especially that the]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Dec 28, 2012 12:04:54 PM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Dec 28, 2012 12:04:54 PM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic (incl. Cantor)</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7640618&amp;tstart=0#7640618</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>elementary everyday logic should be enough to understand my layer theory.<br><br>I myself have studied mathematics and philosophy - but]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Jan 8, 2012 1:11:36 PM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Jan 8, 2012 1:11:36 PM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic (incl. Cantor)</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7634994&amp;tstart=0#7634994</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>of course I should spell "Russell" in my last entry.<br><br>Yuors<br>Trestone<br>]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Dec 28, 2011 1:14:55 AM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Dec 28, 2011 1:14:55 AM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7634197&amp;tstart=0#7634197</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>also layer theory at first look looks very similar to "Russels theory of types" it is different:<br>For example self reference like]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Dec 26, 2011 4:03:14 PM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Dec 26, 2011 4:03:14 PM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7588375&amp;tstart=0#7588375</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>perhaps I should tell a little bit more about the motivation for my axioms:<br><br>?Axiom 1: Statements A are entities independent of]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Oct 15, 2011 5:41:18 PM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Oct 15, 2011 5:41:18 PM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7584283&amp;tstart=0#7584283</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>at first sight, layer theory might look like Russell´s theory of types, but it is different in essential aspects:<br><br>Yes, the]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Oct 8, 2011 12:43:07 PM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Oct 8, 2011 12:43:07 PM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>1</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7579283&amp;tstart=0#7579283</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>I am not so sure what are facts in layer theory:<br><br>Something could have an attribute in layer t<br>and could not have this]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Oct 1, 2011 7:24:33 AM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Oct 1, 2011 7:24:33 AM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>2</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7573980&amp;tstart=0#7573980</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[There are so many layers to this topic. Logically we must begin with the assumption that what is normal is normal, normally. It may be a mistake to]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Sep 21, 2011 7:48:06 PM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Sep 21, 2011 7:48:06 PM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>frogfoot</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>3</jf:replyCount>
        </item>

        <item>
            <title>Re: layer logic: a new dimension to logic?</title>
        
            <link>http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7573455&amp;tstart=0#7573455</link>

        

            <description><![CDATA[Hello,<br><br>I´m interested in your opinion:<br><br>If this ´changing the rules´ with the help of a new dimension would be successfull,<br>would it]]></description>

        

            <jf:creationDate>Sep 21, 2011 4:05:41 AM</jf:creationDate>
            <jf:modificationDate>Sep 21, 2011 4:05:41 AM</jf:modificationDate>
            <jf:author>Trestone</jf:author>
            <jf:replyCount>0</jf:replyCount>
        </item>


    </channel>
</rss>

