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?

--