Date: Mar 21, 2013 4:42 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
In article

<1a31ecd0-30a8-434d-83b4-d82a758fa02f@gp5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 21 Mrz., 02:02, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> > On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, WM wrote:

> >

> > > On 20 Mrz., 22:01, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> >

> > >> Indeed, you have not even given an explanation

> > >> of *all* that is agreed upon.

> >

> > > If you don't know the set theoretic meaning of "all natural numbers",

> > > then you should try to learn it. If you don't know the meaning of

> > > Cantor's "wohlunterscheidbar" (well-distinguishable) that has to be

> > > true for all elements of every set, then you should try to learn it.

> >

> > You should learn what is required when you

> > make claims in academic discourse.

>

> And you should be glad to have left academics.

Only glad to leave the sort of corrupt academics that WM promulgates.

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

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 usual with things mathematical, wrong.

--