In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 16 Mrz., 00:09, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 3/15/2013 2:12 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > On 14 Mrz., 23:36, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > >> On 3/14/2013 5:15 PM, WM wrote: > > > > >>> distinguishable, that means definable by finite words > > > > >> How does a definition "distinguish"? > > > > > A definition is a name. > > > > Ok. But, then I would have to ask > > what you mean by name. > > A name is a finite sequence of letters that two or more persons have > agreed upon to be used for a given object. This object may be material > or immaterial.
Written names may include digits, and other non-letter symbols, particularly in mathematics, and also may be spoken rather than written, and thus independent of precise letter by letter spelling. > > Regards, WM
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. --