Date: Mar 9, 2013 7:37 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 9 Mrz., 21:42, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > Consider a Cantor-list with entries a_n and anti-diagonal d:
> > > For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n).
> > > For every n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating.
> > > For every n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is terminating.
> > > For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) =/= (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n).
> > > For all n: (a_n1, a_n2, ..., a_nn) is terminating.
> > > For all n: (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) is *not* terminating.
> > That last line could only be true in weird places like
> > Wolkenmuekenheim, since outside Wolkenmuekenheim it can only read
> > For all n: the finite sequence (d_1, d_2, ..., d_n) terminates with d_n.
> Correct. But matheologians build d from the infinite set of all FISs
> and forget that every natural number closes a finite initial sequence
> of natural numbers.
The set d (and its more normal representation, |N) are built on the
basis that every natural number is required to have a successor in order
to be a natural number at all, so whatever things WM is working with
which do not all have to have successors, any set of them must contain
something which is not a natural number.
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.