In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 6 Mrz., 23:48, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 6, 7:44 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 6 Mrz., 13:18, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > A subset K of the lines of L > > > > contains every FIS of d iff > > > > K has no findable last line. > > > > > No > > > > Let G be a subset of the lines of L > > with a findable last line. Call > > this line g. > > > > Do you agree with the statement > > > > It is not true that every FIS of d > > is contained in g. > > ? > > I agree with the statements: > In potential infinity any set is finite, though not constant.
In reality, and in standard mathematics, every set is constant, because every set is entirely and uniquely determined by which objects are or are not its members, and thus any change in membership necessarily determines a different set.
> In actual infinite, there are sets that have more than any finite > number of elements.
True > > This is a difference, well-known to the experts, in particular Cantor > and Hilbert. Therefore every attempt of WH to veil this unbridgeable > gap is condemned to fail.
And any attempt by WM to impose his WMytheological mish-mashes on standard mathematics is at least equally doomed to fail
And where is WM's proof that some mapping from the set of all binary sequences to the set of all paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping?
WM has several times claimed it but cannot seem to prove it. --