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 <> wrote:
>> On 3/18/2013 7:03 AM, WM wrote:

>>> On 18 Mrz., 06:28, fom <> 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 United
States, merit is no guarantee for the advancement
of 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 the
difference between a bijection and a linear

It may be true that if one has x:=>x that
one also has a trivial isomorphism, but you have
not even demonstrated that you know what
else is required to satisfy the definitions.

And, for the record, I do not view a tree constructed
over an alphabet with two letters to be a real number.

Nor, if I allow you that much, can you use it that
way because of your finitism (as I explained to
Ross Finlayson).

I will not permit you to simply convert infinite
sequences to compact names so easily.

It is not *agreed* upon.