Date: Mar 16, 2013 7:25 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 224 In article

<3711021c-d3eb-4fa3-8a81-161d8f5ef82c@a8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 16 Mrz., 21:19, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>

> > > In potential infinity there is no necessary line except the last one.

> > > We know that with certainty from induction. Every found and fixed line

> > > n cannot be necessary, because the next line contains it.

> >

> > AS soon as something is identifies as a natural or a FIS of the set of

> > naturals, it has a successor. It cannot be either a natural nor a FIS of

> > the naturals without a successor. at least by any standard definition of

> > naturals.

>

> As soon as a second becomes presence, it has a successor. It cannot be

> presence. Nevertheless presence exists.

Thus in WMytheology one must have the existence of non-existing objects.

I prefer infinities to WM's need for having what one does not have.

> >

> > Can WM provide an definition for natural numberss which doe not state,

> > or at least imply, that every natural must have a successor natural?

>

> Numbers are creations of the mind. Without minds there are no numbers.

Which is not a relevant answer.

Can WM provide an definition for natural numberss which doe not state,

or at least imply, that every natural must have a successor natural?

> >

> > > Everything that is in the list

> > > 1

> > > 1, 2

> > > 1, 2, 3

> > > ...

> > > 1, 2, 3, ..., n

> > > is in the last line. Alas as soon as you try to fix it, it is no

> > > longer the last line.

> >

> > Thus it is unfixable that where there is a last line there are not all

> > lines nor all naturals.

> >

> > Mathematics outside of Wolkenmuekenheim deals successfully with endless

> > processes all the time,

>

> but you are not able to write aleph_0 digits of a real numbers like

> 1/9.

So what? There are lot of things in mathematics one cannot do, but that

should not keep us from doing what we can do, the way you would limit us.

######################################################################

WM has frequently claimed that his 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 the field of scalars and x and y

and f(x) and f(y) are arbitrary members of suitable linear spaces.

While this is possible, and fairly trivial for a competent mathematician

to do, WM has not yet been able to do it.

But frequently claims to have already done it.

--