In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 18 Mrz., 17:36, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 3/18/2013 6:43 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > On 18 Mrz., 07:26, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > > >I prove that the axiom is nonsense like the axiom that a > > > triangle with four edges exists.
WM often claims to have proven things that no one else agrees he has proved.
But in true mathematics, a proof must be generally accepted in order to be considered valid. > > > > You have *proven* nothing. > > Easy to assert
It is equally easy for you to to assert that you have proved something, but until you alleged proof has become generally accepted, it is no more that a claim.
> > > > > Every axiom, beginning with Euclid, established or formalized > > > a triviality. > > > > There is nothing trivial about what makes > > Euclid's axioms different from Hilbert's. > > Don't put words in my mouth.
He merely pointed out that the words you actually used were misleading.
> Try to understand what I said.
Then learn to say it unambiguously.
For example. when you mean t say that a mapping is a bijection, you should learn not to call it a linear mapping.
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.