Date: Mar 9, 2013 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 Mrz., 22:57, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ed9dbe7d-6b3b-4acc-86bc-7b8408236...@m4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 8 Mrz., 10:41, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > A set of natural numbers, finite or infinite, without a first element
> > > > > is not object of mathematics.
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > Name at least one line that is not obviously irrelevant for the task.
> > > > Since any line can be the first line of a suitable set of lines, each
> > > > line is relevant, but also unnecessary.
> > > Each line is relevant but also irrelevant. A nice confession.
> > In order to determine whether a particular line is in a set of lines
> > covering |N, no line is irrelevant but neither are all necessary.
> A nice confession of intellectual helplessness.
It is a statement of fact. That WM does not recognize it as such, shows
that he is the one who is intellectually helpless.
> Of course the lines
> from 1 to n are completely irrelevant.
There is no way to have a line n+1 without having lines 1 to n preceding
it, so that no line is irrelevant in determining the position of the
lines following it.
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 has yet to prove it.