In article <5f771d18-3500-464b-a3ac-909bba01e0f8@o5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 11:35, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 7, 11:12 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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. > > > > Note > > > > There does not exist > > (in the sense of not findable) > > a natural number m such that > > the mth line of L is coFIS with > > d > > Note, there does not exist d other than as every FIS.
There does outside of WMytheology. In real mathematics, d is merely the union of all lines, which is not itself one of those lines.
>These FISs are > the same as the lines. Every findable thing in one set has a > corresponding finadable thing in the other. There is no difference > constructible.
One set, the set of lines, is the set of FISs of the other, d Every line is subset of d, but no line is a member of d.
WM has a long history of being unable to distinguish between the members of and the subsets of a given set, and that difference appears here to be confounding him again. > > Regards, WM
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 several times claimed it but cannot seem to prove it. --
