Date: Mar 7, 2013 4:04 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
<b6eb2ade-2da5-475c-927e-9f0e57edc5f4@gp5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 7 Mrz., 11:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 11:06 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >

> > > On 6 Mrz., 23:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > WM: I said always that L_m is a function
> >
> > WM:  L_m is a single line.
> >
> > WM: (L_m) is a function.
> >
> > WM: L_m is a single line.
> >

>
> Your mistake.
> Define m. First you used L_max. Obviously L_max is a function in pot
> inf..
> Then you switched to L_m. If m means a natural number, then the line
> L_m is a single line and the function is (L_m), if m means max, then
> L_m is a function.
>
> Please express yourself more clearly in future.



What WH is trying to do is to express WM's ideas clearly enough to be
comprehensible outside of WMytheology, but that is clearly impossible.


And where is WM's proof that some mapping from the set of all binary
sequences to the set of all paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping?
WM several times claimed it but cannot seem to prove it.
--