On 3/18/2013 2:43 PM, WM 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.
In pseudo-capitalist societies such as the United States, merit is no guarantee for the advancement of those born into families of little means.
That is the nature of free societies.
You should review Virgil's remarks.
He has suggested that you look up the difference between a bijection and a linear mapping.
It may be true that if one has x:=>x that one also has a trivial isomorphism, but you have not even demonstrated that you know what else is required to satisfy the definitions.
And, for the record, I do not view a tree constructed over an alphabet with two letters to be a real number.
Nor, if I allow you that much, can you use it that way because of your finitism (as I explained to Ross Finlayson).
I will not permit you to simply convert infinite sequences to compact names so easily.