Date: Mar 8, 2013 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 8 Mrz., 22:14, Virgil <> wrote:
> In article
> <>,
>  WM <> wrote:

> > On 8 Mrz., 11:05, William Hughes <> wrote:
> > To make a change: Do *you* agree with the statement: It is silly to
> > claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no first
> > element?

> every NON-EMPTY subset

An empty set does not contain natural numbers. Therefore it is not a
subset of natural numbers but at most a subset of the set of all

< of it is also
> well ordered, and thus has a first element,

Fine. Why do you sometimes appear to have forgotten this elementary
> 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?

I told you already EOD with respect to this isomorphism because you
are too stupid to understand this fact.

Regards, WM