In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 13 Mrz., 20:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > The set of even naturals do not fit in one such finite line > > > It seems that there are only finite lines. And never two or more lines > contain more than one of them. This is simply fact. > > > if we note > > that given any even natural, there is another larger than it. And for > > every even number that WM claims is a last/largest one, others can find > > another yet later/larger. > > But in actual infinity the set is complete. That means that we cannot > find further naturals. All is in te list and, by construction, never > in more than one line.
All is never in one of WM's listed lines as the existence of any listed finite line implies the existence of a a successor line longer than it.
(That's why merely potential infinity is nonsense.)
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. --