Date: Mar 1, 2013 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 1 Mrz., 22:44, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> WM <mueck...@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?
I claimed isomorphy, that means "same structure" and is the correct
description at least for every case of identity of structures. For
instance the English words for the natural numbers are isomorphic to
the German words for the natural numbers.
Succeed or fail to understand. In no case this discussion is relevant
for the question of number of paths of the Binary Tree. Therefore: