Date: Mar 17, 2013 4:53 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<9333e03e-1364-445e-ad93-98754254e7fd@z4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 17 Mrz., 11:19, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> > On 3/17/2013 4:13 AM, WM wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > > On 17 Mrz., 08:18, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> > >> On 3/16/2013 4:37 PM, WM 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.
> >
> > >> And what fantasy is this?
> >
> > >> The successor to the present has existential form but
> > >> has not yet happened.

> >
> > >> That is not the Kantian aprioriticity of time.
> >
> > >> That is not the Hegelian becoming of the present.
> >
> > >> It is the unfounded object of unjustifiable belief.
> >
> > > It is the well known and established natural way how time passes and
> > > how the system of human actions in time goes off.

> >
> > It is the unfounded object of unjustifiable belief.-

>
> Then you should love it like "the Cartesian product of non-empty sets
> is non-empty".


I should very much be interested in seeing WM's example of a Cartesian
product of non-empty sets that is empty, which WM should be able to
construct if the axiom of choice is as false as WM claims it to be.

But then WM cannot even prove that a mapping which he claims is linear
is actually linear.




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



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 would first
have to show that the set of all binary sequences is a linear space
(which he has not done and apparently cannot do) and that the set of
paths of a CIBT is also a vector space (which he also has not done and
apparently cannot do) and then show that his mapping, say f, 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 already to have done it.
--