Date: Mar 22, 2013 4:04 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<7debc104-9c25-4018-b5cb-a8a2f5ff2bb0@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 21 Mrz., 19:39, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> > On 3/21/2013 6:32 AM, WM wrote:
> >
> >
> >

> > > Note: For every finite set of natural numbers, we can look at all
> > > elements, at least in principle.

> >
> > Would you care to prove this for your readers?

>
> No, since it is wrong (at least if sets are considered which have more
> that 10^100 elements). But it is the position of set theory which I do
> apply here in oder to contradict it.


Note that WM has not managed here, or even in his weird world of
WMytheology, to achieve any such contradition.



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

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.
--