Date: Mar 21, 2013 4:46 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
In article

<7e1e2791-f3a7-43f4-bec7-17c5dfe7c8dd@k14g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 20 Mrz., 22:35, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> > On 3/20/2013 3:21 PM, WM 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 lines? Can it have

> > > more than one missing last lines? Well, that's a new aspect of

> > > matheology, but it fits the general picture.

> >

> > Ahem,...

> >

> > You have been asked to explain the meaning of your

> > terms. You have *refused* to do so.

>

> Please note that this is a discussion on a more advanced level.

Ten it must have long since gone over WM's head, since he fluffs off on

even elementary level matters.

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

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.

--