On 23 Feb., 22:08, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > If WM means they are of equal cardinality or biject with each other , > > > true, but to establish an isomorphism, as WM is claiming, one must > > > specify the structure that is being preserved by the bijection, which WM > > > has NOT done. > > > The mapping is bijective and linear. > > I have no idea what WM means by saying that the mapping between the set > of binary strings and the set of paths of a Complete Infinite Binary > Tree is "linear". There is certainly no meaning of "linear" in English > mathematics that is appropriate.
Then use German mathematics. There it is.
f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y)
f(string) = path > > > This shows a contradiction > > - at least in case someone accepts > > Hessenberg's trick as part of mathematics. > > To which Hessenberg, Karl or Gerard or some other one, does WM refer?
That one who "proved" the uncountability of P(|N), Gerhard that is. > > And to what alleged "tricks"?
To look for a set that cannot exist. And to declare the resultless looking as a proof. >