Date: Mar 17, 2013 7:42 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<0ff7b4e3-a20a-44a5-b93d-dfe1b8e94795@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 17 Mrz., 22:39, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You are contradicting yourself.
> >
> > You say there are no necessary findable lines
> > because of the last line (an unfindable line)

>
> In pot. inf. there is always a last line.


But as every line implies the actual existence of a successor line, no
such last line can exist ong enough to be seen.

> It is unfindable or
> unfixable.


An non-existable!

> But I do not wish to discuss potential infinity but actual infinity
> here.

> >
> > You say that if a set of lines contains an unfindable
> > line it is necessary that there are
> > two findable lines.

>
> No. I say that in actual infinity a list contains all natural numbers.
> But they cannot be in one line, because there is no actually infinite
> line. This is a contradiction.


Only if one claims that a FISON need not be a FISON.
>
> Please kindly note: Even if my personal theory was self-contradictory



Which it is!


> that would not improve the situation presently adopted in mathematics.
> So please concentrate on defending your position.


We define the set of naturals so that it has a unique first member and
for each member there is a successor member larger that that predecessor.

According to that definition, all WMytheology is nonsense.




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



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.
--