Date: Mar 21, 2013 12:42 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<2459e3b3-8679-4d89-bd70-c4a2c6dd3144@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 21 Mrz., 09:25, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>

> > It is lines, not naturals, that are the members of such sets.
>
> The lines are enumerated by their last elements.


Then let us switch to the von Neumann naturals, in which each vline is
a vnatunal and each vnatural except 0 is a vline, then vlines will be
ennumerated by vlines.
> >
> > But it does satisfy the rule that every set of lines that covers all of
> > |N has a first line

>
> Why do you cite all sets you cite by unnecessary elements only?


SO is WM claim that in WMytheology a set of lines that covers all lines
does not have to have a first element?

> And if there is no necessary element,

If there is no necessary element, as WM claims, why does the empty set
not work?

You mean you don't know?


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

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.
--