Date: Mar 9, 2013 3:23 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
WM <> wrote:

> On 8 Mrz., 22:47, Virgil <> wrote:

> > > This is obviously the case for that line L_max which is identical with
> > > the maximal FIS of d:

> >
> > Since d does not have  maximal FIS

> L does not have a maximal line either in matheology.

Nor anywhere else, if L is expected to cover each FIS of d, because d
does not have a maximal FIS, at least not outside Wolkenmuekenheim .
> > > 1, 2, 3, ..., max = 1, 2, 3, ..., max
> > > On the the left-hand side you see the line L_max or g, on the right-
> > > hand side you see d, i.e., everything that in potential infinity can
> > > be assumed to exist of lines and d.

> >
> > Nowhere outside WM's futile fiefdom of Wolkenmuekenheim is there a
> > natural with no successor natural nor a FIS of the set of naturals
> > without a successor FIS.
> >

> That holds for the lines and the FISs of d equally.

WM still cannot distinguish between subsets of a set and members of that
set, but outside of his WMytheology they are different.

The lines of WM's list are members of that list but not members of d.
FISs of d are subsets of d and members of WM's list but not members of d.

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.