Date: Mar 21, 2013 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 21 Mrz., 03:22, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <99e95b75-d68a-4aab-9173-a638be0af...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 20 Mrz., 22:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <f9fdc960-d9af-4efe-9e88-4ad45e2e8...@bs5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > On 20 Mrz., 21:11, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > > While WM may not be aware of the fine points of English, when he
> > > > > > speaks
> > > > > > of "THE last line", in standard English it suggest that there is a
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > line.
> > > > > Can a well-defined list have more than one last line?
> > > > It can have less than one last line!
> > > Then *the* last line is missing, not *a* last line as one of many.
> > Only if there was once a last line that has gone missing,
> > If there never was one there is no "the last line" to have gone missing.
> That is the case, in fact. Until Cantor appeared, there has always
> been a last line, not fixed though.
The need for "Last lines" faded out at least as early as Zeno, not
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
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 usual with things mathematical, wrong.