Date: Mar 8, 2013 4:23 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
In article

<70c8b555-6050-40c8-a30b-9d9878f142b5@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 8 Mrz., 12:29, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 8, 12:16 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> > > On 8 Mrz., 11:05, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > > To make a change:

> >

> > Please answer the question

> >

> > > Do *you* agree with the statement: It is silly to

> > > claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no first

> > > element?

> >

> > <outside of Wokenmekenheim>

>

> Where is Worker's meken?

In Wolkenmuekenheim

> >

> > Given the standard ordering, it makes sense

> > to claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no

> > last element but it does not make sense

> > to claim the existence of a (non-empty)

>

> Very important remark! Thank you.

>

> > set of natural numbers that

> > has no

> > first element

>

> Very good. I see, we agree completely. Would you be so kind to inform

> Virgil of this surprising fact? For some unknown reasons he does not

> believe in my words and in logic.

Since I have already posted that only the empty set of naturals can be

without a first element, WM's false implication that I did not know it

is refuted!

>

> And I have a second question:

>

> The set of FISONs that do not contain the set |N of all natural

> numbers, in its natural order, has a first element {1}, a second

> element {1, 2}, but no last element.

>

> Can a bunch of infinitely many incapables be capable?

Any and every infinite set of FIS's of d, each FIS alone, or finite set

of FISs, incapable of covering d, covers d.

It is a shame that something so simple and transparent in standard

mathematics remains so convoluted and opaque in Wolkenmuekenheim .

> For instance, can an infinite sequence of positive numbers between 0

> and 1 have the limit 100?

Only in Wolkenmuekenheim!

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.

--