Date: Mar 1, 2013 4:44 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
<91abed3b-5654-4cdf-880a-9d113b10648e@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 1 Mrz., 13:14, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 12:19 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > > On 28 Feb., 23:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Feb 28, 11:29 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I think that there is a variable maximum or limit that depends (among
> > > > > others) on t.

> >
> > > > So what did the statement
> >
> > > >     There is no m(t).
> >
> > > > mean?
> >
> > > We cannot fix it in the sense required for "there is" of current
> > > mathematics.

> >
> > So at a given time t,
> > m has a value which is a
> > natural number, but we cannot
> > assign this natural number
> > to a function.

>
> Can you find a largest natural number in your personal environment?
> Can you determine the largest natural number that your computer is
> able to compute?



Can WM make a mapping from the SET (but not linear space) of infinite
binary sequences to the SET (but not linear space) of paths in a
Complete Infinite Binary Tree into his claimed linear mapping?
--