Date: Feb 23, 2013 4:41 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 23 Feb., 22:08, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > > If WM means they are of equal cardinality or biject with each other ,
> > > true, but to establish an isomorphism, as WM is claiming, one must
> > > specify the structure that is being preserved by the bijection, which WM
> > > has NOT done.

>
> > The mapping is bijective and linear.
>
> I have no idea what WM means by saying that the mapping between the set
> of binary strings and the set of paths of a Complete Infinite Binary
> Tree is "linear". There is certainly no meaning of "linear" in English
> mathematics that is appropriate.


Then use German mathematics. There it is.

f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y)

f(string) = path
>
> > This shows a contradiction
> > - at least in case someone accepts
> > Hessenberg's trick as part of mathematics.

>
> To which Hessenberg, Karl or Gerard or some other one, does WM refer?


That one who "proved" the uncountability of P(|N), Gerhard that is.
>
> And to what alleged "tricks"?


To look for a set that cannot exist. And to declare the resultless
looking as a proof.
>

Regards, WM