Virgil
Posts:
9,012
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Matheology � 223: AC and AMS
Posted:
Mar 18, 2013 6:48 PM


In article <983fa2a18d054b75b191262103530f4a@o5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 18 Mrz., 21:44, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 3/18/2013 2:26 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > > > There is no framework necessary to see that choosing a number is > > > tantamount to naming it. Only fools can object. But fools will not be > > > convinced by what they don't believe. This is shown by all the > > > matheologians who know of these simple ifacts but nevertheless refuse > > > to understand that their "science" is humbug. > > > > But, I have asked you what you mean > > when you talk about naming things. > > Observe what you do when you are naming things like "mother" or "sun" > or "three" or "amazing". > > > > You must be clear about what you mean > > if I am to understand your beliefs. > > Either you know that, or you don't. If not, then it is not my task to > teach you. > > Regards, WM
For someone who is trying to convert others to his faith, WM is being remarkably secretive about what that faith says.
=========================================================================
WM claimed: > 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.everal flaws in WM's claim that the identity map on induces a linear map on 2^N. WM's flaws in making that claim work include, but are not necessarily limited to:
(1) not all members of R will have any such binary expansions, only those between 0 and 1, so that not all sums of vectors will "add up" to be vectors within his alleged linear space, and (2) some reals (the positive binary rationals strictly between 0 and 1) will have two distinct and unequalasvectors representations, requiring that some real numbers not be equal to themselves as a vectors, and
(3) WM's method does not provide for the negatives of any of the vectors that he can form.
On the basis of the above problems, and possibly others as well that I have not yet even thought of, I challenge WM's claim to have represented the set R as the set of all binary sequences, much less to have imbued that set of all binary sequences with the structure of a real vector space or the showed the identity mapping to be a linear mapping on his set of "vectors". 

