Date: Mar 8, 2013 3:27 AM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots In article

<27de9851-d5b7-47bc-bc9d-58c828f1df6c@ia3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 8 Mrz., 01:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > In article

> > <a4e8dab1-c681-48ca-bc5e-08ceba1ba...@i5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > On 7 Mrz., 21:32, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > Here we are asking what lines of the list

> > > > > > > 1

> > > > > > > 1, 2

> > > > > > > 1, 2, 3

> > > > > > > ...

> > > > > > > are required to contain all natural numbers. The first three

> > > > > > > lines are

> > > > > > > definitively not required. And every mathematician can show that

> > > > > > > no

> > > > > > > line is required,

> >

> > > > > > While no particular line is required, WM is falsely implying hat no

> > > > > > lines are required at all, whereas infinitely many lines are

> > > > > > required.

> >

> > > > > Every line that is not the last line, is not required, because the

> > > > > next one contributes all that the line could contribute.

> >

> > > > Since there is no last line, what you are saying is nonsense.

> >

> > > Try to think like a human being called sapiens sapiens should do:

> > > Can a line that is not the last line, i.e., that has a follower, can

> > > such a line be required in any respect?

> >

> > > If there is no last line, then no line is required.

> >

> > No particular line is required,

>

> So we can exclude every line.

We can exclude any, but not every line.

We can exclude any set of lines that leaves infinitely many lines still

not excluded, since any infinite set of lies is sufficient.

>

> > but that is not the same as saying that

> > no lines are required.

>

> The set of lines is ordered by the natural numbers. Every set of

> natural numbers has a first element.

Irrelevant to the fact that ANY infinite set of lines is sufficient,

which means that no particular line is required, but infinitely many

lines are required.

>

> Name the first line.

Which first line? There are infinitely many possible first lines.

In fact EVERY line is a first line of some such set.

E.g., for each natural n in |N, the set of all line from the nth line

onward is sufficient.

> Or confess that your matheology is unmathematical.

My math is a good deal more mathematical than your WMytheology.

Your 'math' cannot even show that what you claim is a linear mapping is

linear.

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.

--