In article <d5242280-6324-489b-a8e3-a37a4f641d73@y9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 12 Mrz., 00:51, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 11, 10:40 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > You will never succeed in proving that pot. inf. is > > > the same as act. inf, since your unsurmountable obstacle is the > > > requirement that all natural numbers have to be in the list, but > > > cannot be in one line but must be in one line. > > > > In the language of potential infinity, your famous > > > > all the natural numbers are in the first column > > but not in any line becomes > > You talk about the list > > 1 > 2, 1 > 3, 2, 1 > ... > ? > > Here all columns contain all natural numbers, i.e., each one contains > all. > > > > > There is a fixed column, C_1, which is coFIS to > > |N. There is no fixed line which is coFIS to |N > > There is no |N in potential infinity.
There is no line whose reversal is the same as any column. > > > > There is no problem with either statment. > > There is a problem with the statement, of actual infinity, that all > natural numbers are in the list but not in any single line.
That claim only holds inside Wolkenmuekenheim, if anywhere, and not outside Wolkenmuekenheim
> This is in > contradiction with the fact that > 1) the union of two finite lines is always a subset of one of the two > lines > and > 2) the list contains only finite lines.
If it were in contradiction, WM should be able to produce a more formal proof of that claim, but WM is incapable of producing anythng like a formal proof of anything. Every one of his attempts to do so has been fatally flawed. > > This should somehow be removed in case of infinitely many lines, but > it is not. Infinitely many finite numbers do not contain an infinite > number.
But infinitely many distinct finite numbers do make up the membership of an actually infinite set of finite numbers. Like |N.
> Infinitely many white balls do not contain a green cube. Infinitely many of WM's irrelevancies do not make a relevancy.
WM has frequently claimed that a mapping from the set of all infinite binary sequences to the set of paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping. In order to show that such a mapping is a linear mapping, WM must first show that the set of all binary sequences is a vector space and that the set of paths of a CIBT is also a vector space, which he has not done and apparently cannot do, and then show that his mapping satisfies the linearity requirement that f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y), where a and b are arbitrary members of a field of scalars and x and y are f(x) and f(y) are vectors in suitable linear spaces.
By the way, WM, what are a, b, ax, by and ax+by when x and y are binary sequences?
If a = 1/3 and x is binary sequence, what is ax ? and if f(x) is a path in a CIBT, what is af(x)?
Until these and a few other issues are settled, WM will still have failed to justify his claim of a LINEAR mapping from the set (but not yet proved to be vector space) of binary sequences to the set (but not yet proved to be vector space) of paths ln a CIBT.
Just another of WM's many wild claims of what goes on in his WMytheology that he cannot back up. --
