Date: Mar 16, 2013 7:30 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
In article

<923672fe-e549-4fb8-ab4c-fe7f09deee0e@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 16 Mrz., 21:07, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>

> > > We call it unfindable or unfixable

> > > because as soon as we have found it, it is no longer the last line.

> >

> > If finding it makes it not what it is supposed to be, the how does one

> > prove that any such thing exists?

>

> Simply by observing that otherwise, there must be a set with at least

> two natural numbers, both of which do not belong to the set.

Non Sequitur, at least outside WMytheology.

Where actually infinite set of naturls is allowed, nothing like what WQM

demands is needed or even possible.

> >

> > It seems that as soon as you even try to refer to it, it is no longer

> > what you want it to be.

>

> Correct. That feature have potential infinity and ending of the past

> in commonSo potentaial infinity is never what you want it to be?

It is certainly never what we want, so lets dump it as a bad idea.

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

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.

--