Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 14, 2013 4:29 PM
|
|
In article
<1a29638f-f1a2-4a59-a07c-75e93e7ad53d@k14g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> Every well-defined Cantor diagonal belongs to the countable set of
> nameable real numbers (named by the definition of the list and of the
> replacement rule). And undefined Cantor-lists do not yield real
> numbers.
>
> Regards, WM
Cantor says a complete listing of real numbers cannot exist.
WM says a complete listing of real numbers cannot exist,
but simultaneously insists that Cantor is wrong.
***********************************************************************
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.
--
|
|
|
|
