```Date: Mar 18, 2013 6:17 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/18/2013 2:43 PM, WM wrote:> 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.In pseudo-capitalist societies such as the UnitedStates, merit is no guarantee for the advancementof those born into families of little means.That is the nature of free societies.You should review Virgil's remarks.He has suggested that you look up thedifference between a bijection and a linearmapping.It may be true that if one has x:=>x thatone also has a trivial isomorphism, but you havenot even demonstrated that you know whatelse is required to satisfy the definitions.And, for the record, I do not view a tree constructedover an alphabet with two letters to be a real number.Nor, if I allow you that much, can you use it thatway because of your finitism (as I explained toRoss Finlayson).I will not permit you to simply convert infinitesequences to compact names so easily.It is not *agreed* upon.
```