In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 17 Mrz., 08:18, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 3/16/2013 4:37 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > On 16 Mrz., 21:19, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > >>> In potential infinity there is no necessary line except the last one. > > >>> We know that with certainty from induction. Every found and fixed line > > >>> n cannot be necessary, because the next line contains it. > > > > >> AS soon as something is identifies as a natural or a FIS of the set of > > >> naturals, it has a successor. It cannot be either a natural nor a FIS of > > >> the naturals without a successor. at least by any standard definition of > > >> naturals. > > > > > As soon as a second becomes presence, it has a successor. > > > > And what fantasy is this? > > > > The successor to the present has existential form but > > has not yet happened. > > > > That is not the Kantian aprioriticity of time. > > > > That is not the Hegelian becoming of the present. > > > > It is the unfounded object of unjustifiable belief. > > It is the well known and established natural way how time passes and > how the system of human actions in time goes off.
Mathematical truth is independent of time.
What was true yesterday will be true tomorrow and what was false yesterday will almost always be false tomorrow.
Of course what had not yet been proved yesterday may be proved by tomorrow, but it was still as true yesterday as it will be tomorrow.
So that WM's time image is an irrelevancy.
And similarly, the natural numbers of any tomorrow were already natural numbers in every yesterday.
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.