In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 Mrz., 15:45, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > So let's talk about d the way you > > talk about d. > > That is the origin of many misunderstandings. > d does exist as "the diagonal". Compare: The sequence (1/n) does > exist, namely by the finite definition "The sequence (1/n)" with the > obvious understanding that n assumes every natural number or even all > natural numbers one ofter the other. > > In this sense we can talk in analysis and potential infinity about d. > But neither this wording nor any mathematical construction can yield > more than d_1, ..., d_n (for every n). > In this sense (and obviously) every FIS of d is a line. So we have > identity between FIS of d and corresponding lines. It is simply > impossible that d (and that means "any FIS" of d in pot. inf.) is > longer than every line.
Except that WM does not have the power to define what anything has to mean outside of his own little fanatic fiefdom 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. --