In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 12 Mrz., 12:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 12, 11:44 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Mrz., 11:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar > > > 12, 10:19 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12 Mrz., 00:51, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > |N is the potentially infinite set of natural numbers. > > > > > The "potentially infinite set" is already a contradictio in adjecto, > > > because the notion of set always requires completenes. > > > > OK, let |N be the potentially infinite sequence > > of natural numbers. > > > > <snip> > > > > > Actual infinity requires that *all* natural numbers are in the list > > > but not in a single line. That is a contradiction. > > > > OK, your position is that the equivalent > > statement in potential infinity > > > > Every natural number is in the list but not in a > > single findable line. > > Note: "Every natural number"! This sentence means about the same as > every man or every Chinese character, namely a collection that is > finite but capable of growing (or shrinking).
I defy WM to produce something that is a natural today but will not be one tomorrow or to produce a natural whose successor is not an natural today but will be tomorrow. Absent these, WM's claim of a varying "is a natural" property falls flat.
> > The list > > 1 > 1, 2 > 1, 2, 3 > ... > > has only *finite* lines!
But more than any finite number of lines and non-finite-lengthed columns. > > > Even if I accept this > > all it means is that I am incorrectly talking > > about numbers in infinite sets, > > rather than findable numbers in > > finite sets with unfindable last > > elements. > Why is the last element unfindable? Because it is not fixed.
Thus WM invents variable constants, natural numbers that change their values over time.
> Therefore > we cannot prove that it is the last element.
A "last natural", if one were to exist, would have to be one having no successor natural, which would make it extremely unnatural.
> If we find that a memory > contains n as the last element, we easily can double it. Well, then 2n > is the last element, for a moment. We are not limited to invent new > abbreviations to increase the maximum. But we will never have more > numbers than 10^100 or so.
So that in WM' mind, a number that cannot be named cannot exist? That screws up anything like Cartesian Geometry or calculus.
> This is because mathematics is not with God > but with reality.
Only physicists delude themselves that mathematics is reality. It may occasionally come usefully close, but never actually touches it. > > > My results do not change. > > That is deplorable. Your results are a contradiction.
Only n contradiction to the idiotic demands of WMYTHEOLOGY which is to be lauded!.
> > Why don't you believe in an actually infinite natural number?
Because adding 1 to a finite number doe not ever go there.
> Why do you think that it differs from an actually infinite FISON?
An actually infinite Finite Initial Set Of Naturals?
We don't believe in those for the same reason that we do not beleive in composite primes. > > > All you have is a teddy bear that says > > "An infinite set of natural numbers > > does not exist". > > And so I am well off the dilemma with an infinite FISON.
Then you must also believe in composite primes and equilateral right triangles, and such like.
> And I live in the real world.
One filled with infinite-FISONs, composite-primes, equilateral-right-triangles, and such like?
> Mathematics is the last science that lives in a pre- > Darwin state, believing everthing rotates around it (pre-Copernicus- > state), everything is influenced by mathematics, but mathematics is > not acted upon by reality (actio without reactio, pre-Newton state).
Mathematics is not, strictly speaking, anything like a (physical) science at all, as its truths are not evaluated by their agreement with objective physical evidence.
And it is only those, like WM, who cannot acknowledge that mathematics is NOT a science, that get themselves into such deep doo-doo by thinking that it is a science.
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. --