Date: Mar 18, 2013 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 18 Mrz., 17:59, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/18/2013 7:03 AM, WM wrote:
> > On 18 Mrz., 06:28, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> > It has been done already long ago (see Matheology § 226).
> > The isomorphism is from |R,+,* to |R,+,*. Only in one case the
> > elements of |R are written as binary sequences and the other time as
> > paths of the Binary Tree. Virgil is simply too stupid to understand
> > that.
> It has not been done at all.
> You may perform the requested task according to
> the standard definitions used in mathematics
> or you may propose new definitions to be
> considered and *agreed* upon.
Show your full ignorance of math, and by that fact justify that you
had to leave academic world, by refuting that the identity mapping of |
R on |R is an isomorphism.