Date: Mar 21, 2013 4:14 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
In article

<f2e9c27c-9757-452b-9112-ac2ff8684bc1@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 21 Mrz., 04:06, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>

> > For any natural n in |N, we can know that n lines fail, but we can also

> > know that any infinite set of lines succeeds.

>

> No. You are so blinded by what you have learned that you think you

> knew that. But if you applied induction to the set M of unnecessary

> lines, you could find the contrary.

While induction can certainly prove that no finite set of lines is

sufficient, it cannot prove that an infinite set of lines cannot be

sufficient, because some infinite sets of lines clearly ARE sufficient,

the set of all lines, for example, is both infinite and sufficient.

====================================================================

WM claims to know how to map bijectively the set of infinite binary

sequences, B, linearly to the set of reals and then map that image set

of reals linearly ONTO the set of all paths, P, of a Complete Infinite

Binary Tree.

But each binary rational in |R is necessarily the image of two sequences

in B but that one rational can then only produce one image in P, so the

mapping cannot be the bijection WM claims.

SO that WM is, as so frequently with things mathematical, wrong.

--