The hyperlinks are to my entries in the author indexes by date.

• Boolos on the Analyticity of HP

• The liar and the semantics of set theory (expansion)

• Re: Soare on "recursion" versus "computability"
• On "grasping" Con(ZFC)

• Conservative Extension
• Conjecture about true arithmetic

• Re:Book recommendation (Manzano)

• Re: first order and second order logic: once more
• On the expressiveness of languages and the recursive complexity of truth
• Saying what you mean
• Re: SOL confusion
• Re: logical vs mathematical
• Re: The logical, the set-theoretical, and the mathematical
• on the definability of "polyadic comprehension"
• Re: Plural Quantification and Comprehension
• Re: Ontology in Logic and Mathematics

• CH and 2nd-order validity
• Re: theology
• Re: Having truth-values
• On claiming that CH has a truth value

• Re: Bishop-style constructive mathematics

• Questions about Polya's "Plausible Reasoning"

• Adverse comment on the Archie project
• Re: Neo-Fregean reverse mathematics

• Does Shapiro's ZFC2 need a small cardinal axiom?

• Re: 107:Automated Proof Checking

• Re: New solution to the Liar paradox

• Arbitrary objects
• Are machines better in math?

• "Noetherian induction" and 2nd order Zermelo set theory
• Yablo, Mirimanoff, and Negative Types

• The liar and the semantics of set theory (expansion)

• looking for review

• A question about the history of a notation

• Friedman's Simplified Foundations
• Semantical realism without ontological realism in mathematics
• CH in standard models

• Query for Martin Davis. was:truth and consistency
• Mathematical Certainty?
• 182:Ideas in Proof Checking 1

• The width of V
• 187:Grand Unification 2 - saving human lives
• Mechanising Proof
• Independece without Forcing
• Re: FOM and real numbers

• Foundations and Frege
• Founders of set theory and natural language

• reducing higher to second order?

• Davis's reply to Ord re hypercomputation

• Definition of "large cardinal axiom"?
• Why the definition of "large cardinal axiom" matters

• consistency of PA?
• What makes a large cardinal axiom plausible?
• Re: Why the definition of "large cardinal axiom" matters

• LaTeX for logicians
• Re: Definition of Large Cardinal Axiom

• Higher Order Set Theory

• alleged quote from Hilbert

• Mathematical conceptualism
• predicativity
• The defence of well-founded set theory

• The defence of well-founded set theory
• V does not exist
• A Defence of Set Theory as Foundations
• Disproving Godel's explanation of incompleteness
• Explaining incompleteness

• Explanation/Continuum Hypothesis
• Query for Roger Jones

• Meta-Logic

• Extensionality and Church-Oswald constructions
• Ruling-out Nonstandard Models of 1st-Order PA

• The influence of Leibniz on Russell

• Completability of Cumulative Heirarchy

• Simple historical question

• Concerning definition of formulas

• CH and mathematics

• Out-of-print books

• mechanical theorem metachecking
• References on continuum hypothesis in non-well-founded set theory

• Proof assistants and conjectures
• The QED Manifesto today

• Arithmetic categoricity of CZF

• Why would one prefer ZFC to ZC?

• Falsify Platonism?
• Foreman's preface to HST

• Moore on modality

• "Salvaging" Voevodsky's talk
• Motivation for univalent foundations

• CH and forcing
• CH and forcing - counter claim
• n-th order ZFC
• Numbers vs writhmetic. was: n-th order ZFC

• Numbers vs writhmetic.

• Sorry, yet another historical question