In article <c89d12c1-637b-4262-a71d-512c9b1315a4@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 18 Mrz., 17:59, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 3/18/2013 7:03 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > On 18 Mrz., 06:28, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > > > It has been done already long ago (see Matheology § 226). > > > The isomorphism is from |R,+,* to |R,+,*. Only in one case the > > > elements of |R are written as binary sequences and the other time as > > > paths of the Binary Tree. Virgil is simply too stupid to understand > > > that. > > > > It has not been done at all. > > > > You may perform the requested task according to > > the standard definitions used in mathematics > > or you may propose new definitions to be > > considered and *agreed* upon. > > Show your full ignorance of math, and by that fact justify that you > had to leave academic world, by refuting that the identity mapping of | > R on |R is an isomorphism. > While the identity map on |R is an isomorphism, there is no clear way to biject |R with the set of all binary sequences , especially if one has to preserve linearity: f(b1 +b2) = f(b1) + f(b2) and f(r*b1) = r*f(b1), for real r and binaries b1 and b2. --
