In article <692a3312-1f8e-446f-b087-aa32da4b3ee8@k14g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 8 Mrz., 23:33, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 8, 8:28 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 Mrz., 17:15, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 8, 4:55 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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. > > > > > > You find it reasonable to say > > > > > > a line of L is not coFIS with d > > > > We have > > > > No findable line of L is coFIS > > with d [note this is your statement] > > > > g is a findable line of L > > Every line of L is a findable line.
Then every line of L must have a successor line, ad infinitum, and L is provably actually infinite as "successor" injects it into a proper subset of itself.
> > > > Do you agree with the statement > > > > g is not coFIS with d. > > No. > > I think it is best to keep in memory the original posting: > > Consider a Cantor-list with entries a_n and anti-diagonal d: > > For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n). > For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating. > For every n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is terminating. > > For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n). > For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating. > For all n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is *not* terminating.
That last line could only be true in weird places like Wolkenmuekenheim, since outside Wolkenmuekenheim it can only read For all n: the finite sequence (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) terminates with d_n.
That what WM claims as nonsense is agreed but it is WM's nonsense, not ours, and only holds in such places as Wolkenmuekenheim in which WM has control of how logic works, and does not hold where logic is allowed to follow its own rules.
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. --
