In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 17 Mrz., 10:54, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 3/16/2013 4:57 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Mrz., 16:13, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > > >> Where we come to the question of > > >> how you refer to points without > > >> an implicit use of infinity. > > > > > All points that you can define geometrically, belong to a finite > > > collection. > > > > >> This, of course, comes back to > > >> how you refer singularly without > > >> an implicit use of infinity. > > > > > A unit can be defined without referring to infinity. I think it is one > > > of the silliest arguments of matheology that infinity is required to > > > define finity. It is simply insane. > > > > No. It is merely respectful -- something of > > which you seem incapable. > > > Respect requires a respectable object. > Insanities do not deserve respect. > There were too many who respected Nero, Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin and > those who stimulated others to do so.
There is also at least one too many who respect WM, namely WM.
WM has frequently claimed that HIS 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 would first have to show that the set of all binary sequences is a linear space (which he has not done and apparently cannot do) and that the set of paths of a CIBT is also a vector space (which he also has not done and apparently cannot do) and then show that his mapping, say f, satisfies the linearity requirement that f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y), where a and b are arbitrary members of the field of scalars and x and y and f(x) and f(y) are arbitrary members of suitable linear spaces.
While this is possible, and fairly trivial for a competent mathematician to do, WM has not yet been able to do it.