> On 23 Feb., 22:08, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > >> > > If WM means they are of equal cardinality or biject with each other , >> > > true, but to establish an isomorphism, as WM is claiming, one must >> > > specify the structure that is being preserved by the bijection, which >> > > WM has NOT done. >> >> > The mapping is bijective and linear. >> >> I have no idea what WM means by saying that the mapping between the set >> of binary strings and the set of paths of a Complete Infinite Binary >> Tree is "linear". There is certainly no meaning of "linear" in English >> mathematics that is appropriate. > > Then use German mathematics. There it is.
German mathematics, hahahaha. Concerning the level of idiocy that was something coming close to your braindead "Matherealism". It was, however, of a different nature; that it flourished in the years 1933-45 should say enough about this. And its main representatives (Bieberbach and Teichmüller come to mind) at least produced some pieces of mathematics of real quality, despite their political follies. This is somethinmg which can not be said about your crap.
> f(ax + by) = af(x) + bf(y) > > f(string) = path
If you were not completely deaf and dumb in any respect concerning mathematics you would know that you have to explain what "ax + by" should mean for strings.
>> > This shows a contradiction >> > - at least in case someone accepts >> > Hessenberg's trick as part of mathematics. >> >> To which Hessenberg, Karl or Gerard or some other one, does WM refer? > > That one who "proved" the uncountability of P(|N), Gerhard that is. >> >> And to what alleged "tricks"? > > To look for a set that cannot exist. And to declare the resultless > looking as a proof.
Your proof of your stupidity may indeed be more comvincing than Hessenberg's proof of card(PX) > card(X).