In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 16 Mrz., 16:01, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > perhaps you could explain what you mean > > by "given object" and how an immaterial > > object can be given. > > It cannot be given other than by naming it (except from clumsy > approaches by means of sign language).
I do not regard pointing at a thing to identify it as being at all clumsy.
Pointing to things on a blackboard is often considerably less clumsy than any other way of referring to them. But blackboards may be too outre to be used in WM's world.
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. --