On 8 Mrz., 22:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <6b761426-151b-43b7-adbb-3841e48fe...@y9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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?
> every NON-EMPTY subset
An empty set does not contain natural numbers. Therefore it is not a subset of natural numbers but at most a subset of the set of all unicorns.
< of it is also > well ordered, and thus has a first element,
Fine. Why do you sometimes appear to have forgotten this elementary wisdom? > > 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?
I told you already EOD with respect to this isomorphism because you are too stupid to understand this fact.