In article <91abed3b-5654-4cdf-880a-9d113b10648e@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 1 Mrz., 13:14, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 1, 12:19 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Feb., 23:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:29 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > I think that there is a variable maximum or limit that depends (among > > > > > others) on t. > > > > > > So what did the statement > > > > > > There is no m(t). > > > > > > mean? > > > > > We cannot fix it in the sense required for "there is" of current > > > mathematics. > > > > So at a given time t, > > m has a value which is a > > natural number, but we cannot > > assign this natural number > > to a function. > > Can you find a largest natural number in your personal environment? > Can you determine the largest natural number that your computer is > able to compute?
Can WM make a mapping from the SET (but not linear space) of infinite binary sequences to the SET (but not linear space) of paths in a Complete Infinite Binary Tree into his claimed linear mapping? --
