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.

--