In article <dd451c73-da29-4427-a669-ad023508e968@c10g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 9 Mrz., 21:42, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Correct. But matheologians build d from the infinite set of all FISs > and forget that every natural number closes a finite initial sequence > of natural numbers.
The set d (and its more normal representation, |N) are built on the basis that every natural number is required to have a successor in order to be a natural number at all, so whatever things WM is working with which do not all have to have successors, any set of them must contain something which is not a natural number.
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. --
