Date: Mar 12, 2013 5:28 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots In article

<d5242280-6324-489b-a8e3-a37a4f641d73@y9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 12 Mrz., 00:51, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 11, 10:40 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> > > You will never succeed in proving that pot. inf. is

> > > the same as act. inf, since your unsurmountable obstacle is the

> > > requirement that all natural numbers have to be in the list, but

> > > cannot be in one line but must be in one line.

> >

> > In the language of potential infinity, your famous

> >

> > all the natural numbers are in the first column

> > but not in any line becomes

>

> You talk about the list

>

> 1

> 2, 1

> 3, 2, 1

> ...

> ?

>

> Here all columns contain all natural numbers, i.e., each one contains

> all.

>

> >

> > There is a fixed column, C_1, which is coFIS to

> > |N. There is no fixed line which is coFIS to |N

>

> There is no |N in potential infinity.

There is no line whose reversal is the same as any column.

> >

> > There is no problem with either statment.

>

> There is a problem with the statement, of actual infinity, that all

> natural numbers are in the list but not in any single line.

That claim only holds inside Wolkenmuekenheim, if anywhere, and not

outside Wolkenmuekenheim

> This is in

> contradiction with the fact that

> 1) the union of two finite lines is always a subset of one of the two

> lines

> and

> 2) the list contains only finite lines.

If it were in contradiction, WM should be able to produce a more formal

proof of that claim, but WM is incapable of producing anythng like a

formal proof of anything. Every one of his attempts to do so has been

fatally flawed.

>

> This should somehow be removed in case of infinitely many lines, but

> it is not. Infinitely many finite numbers do not contain an infinite

> number.

But infinitely many distinct finite numbers do make up the membership of

an actually infinite set of finite numbers. Like |N.

> Infinitely many white balls do not contain a green cube.

Infinitely many of WM's irrelevancies do not make a relevancy.

***********************************************************************

WM has frequently claimed that a mapping from the set of all infinite

binary sequences to the set of paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping.

In order to show that such a mapping is a linear mapping, WM must first

show that the set of all binary sequences is a vector space and that the

set of paths of a CIBT is also a vector space, which he has not done and

apparently cannot do, and then show that his mapping satisfies the

linearity requirement that

f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y),

where a and b are arbitrary members of a field of scalars and x and y

are f(x) and f(y) are vectors in suitable linear spaces.

By the way, WM, what are a, b, ax, by and ax+by when x and y are binary

sequences?

If a = 1/3 and x is binary sequence, what is ax ?

and if f(x) is a path in a CIBT, what is af(x)?

Until these and a few other issues are settled, WM will still have

failed to justify his claim of a LINEAR mapping from the set (but not

yet proved to be vector space) of binary sequences to the set (but not

yet proved to be vector space) of paths ln a CIBT.

Just another of WM's many wild claims of what goes on in his WMytheology

that he cannot back up.

--