In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8 Mrz., 09:27, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > but that is not the same as saying that > > > > no lines are required. > > > > > The set of lines is ordered by the natural numbers. Every set of > > > natural numbers has a first element. > > > > Irrelevant to the fact that ANY infinite set of lines is sufficient, > > which means that no particular line is required, but infinitely many > > lines are required. > > A set of natural numbers, finite or infinite, without a first element > is not object of mathematics. > > > > > > > Name the first line. > > > > Which first line? There are infinitely many possible first lines. > > In fact EVERY line is a first line of some such set. > > Name at least one line that is not obviously irrelevant for the task.
Since any line can be the first line of a suitable set of lines, each line is relevant, but also unnecessary.
That WM is incapable of grasping that is why he is forever lost in his dreamworld of WMytheology.
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.
If his claim is true, then a proof should be simple. If it is false, WM ought to retract it. If WM can't tell which, he is a lousy mathematician. --