In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 9 Mrz., 16:00, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So this is WM's explanation. > > > > When he says > > > > No findable line of L is coFIS > > with d > > > > and > > > > g is coFIS with d > > > > he is not using the same d. > > > > d like L_m is changable. > > > > So let us use (d) to indicate the function. > > The function (d) is not changable, though > > its value may be. > > What do you understand by the not changeable function (d)? > > ================ > The function d is the set of all natural numbers n mapped on all FISs > d_1, d_2, ..., d_n together with the prescription of how the mapping > has to be done? > ================ > > That would be actual infinity again.
Beats s**t out of your miscgenation of potential infinity which is neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.
> > (d) is *not* an actual infinite sequence like "0.110110110..." is not > an actual infinite sequence but a word of 14 letters (that can be > interpreted as indicating an actual infinite string - if one believes > in actual infinity). In potential infinity the function (d) always - > during the lifetime of the universe - has a finite maximum, not always > the same though.
So now WM wants to introduce variable constants! No way.
> But there is always a last FIS.
As soon as any FIS is designated as last, it defines its own successor, so is no longer last. Thus one can never get to a "last" one.
> And this FIS is coFIS > with this FIS.
What is its successor soFIS with?
> What could be simpler than to state that d, which is > nothing but every FIS up to a maximum FIS d_1, ..., d_max is coFIS > with this maximum FIS d_1, ..., d_max which is simultaneously the line > 1, 2, ..., max?
Actual infiniteness avoids having elements which have to have successors that do not have successors.
How does WM define his version of natural numbers without successorship?
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. --