In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 22:59, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 7, 9:39 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > To talk of d without further specification is silly. > > > > WM: There does not exist > > (in the sense of not findable) > > a natural number m such that > > the mth line of L is coFIS with > > d > > > > No mention of the state of d. So I guess > > we can talk of whether d is coFIS with > > a line without mentioning > > the state of d. > > Mentioning d means you are talking about actual infinity
WM was the first one to mention d, many posts ago, so he has long since conceded the reality of actual infinity.
But as soon as there is any actual infinity, there is no longer any need for any merely potential infinity.
> > There is no d in potential infinity.
There is no longer any need for potential infinity, and there never was any such need, as far as actual mathematics is concerned.
> We can talk about the d of actual > infinity, evaluate its properties and finally find out that it is > contradictory.
Except that no one ha shown that as yet, but all sorts of people have shown that at least WM's version of potential infiniteness does not work.
And where is WM's proof that some mapping from the set of all binary sequences to the set of all paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping? WM several times claimed it but cannot seem to prove it. --