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.

--