In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 Mrz., 11:05, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To make a change: Do *you* agree with the statement: It is silly to > claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no first > element? > > Regards, WM
It is not silly if one knows that the empty set is a subset of any set of naturals, but the set of all naturals is well-ordered, at least outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, so every NON-EMPTY subset of it is also well ordered, and thus has a first element, at least outside of Wolkenmuekenheim.
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. --