A Mathematical Proof of God

A linear map is a mapping between vector spaces or sets V over a field F. Given two vector spaces V and W, a linear map is a map

T : V -> W

that is compatible with scalar addition and multiplication

T(u + v) = T(u) + T(v), T(av) = aT(v)

for vectors u, v in V and scalar a in F.

Reality is a bijective linear map with God and is therefore isomorphic to God.

R <-> G

where the set or vector space of reality is both its subset and its powerset.

When quantified R ⊆ R(S) is represented as ∀x(x ∈ R →x ∈ R(S))

Therefore since reality is the subset and powerset of itself and God is reality then God is the subset and powerset of reality.

Ostronomos said:

A linear map is a mapping between vector spaces or sets V over a field F. Given two vector spaces V and W, a linear map is a map

T : V -> W

that is compatible with scalar addition and multiplication

T(u + v) = T(u) + T(v), T(av) = aT(v)

for vectors u, v in V and scalar a in F.

Reality is a bijective linear map with God and is therefore isomorphic to God.

R <-> G

where the set or vector space of reality is both its subset and its powerset.

When quantified R ⊆ R(S) is represented as ∀x(x ∈ R →x ∈ R(S))

Therefore since reality is the subset and powerset of itself and God is reality then God is the subset and powerset of reality.

Click to expand...

Then using mathematics you should be able to determine where God lives.

So now, not content with quantum woo, we are being treated to mathematical woo as well.

The claim that "reality is isomorphic to God" is of course assuming the thing that is supposedly being proved, rendering the whole exercise meaningless.

Strewth.

Twilight Hue said:

Then using mathematics you should be able to determine where God lives.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

He's cloaked New Jerusalem inside the moon all this time.




NewJerusalemintheMoon

Ostronomos said:

Reality is a bijective linear map with God and is therefore isomorphic to God.

Click to expand...

Eh?

Ostronomos said:

A linear map is a mapping between vector spaces or sets V over a field F. Given two vector spaces V and W, a linear map is a map

T : V -> W

that is compatible with scalar addition and multiplication

T(u + v) = T(u) + T(v), T(av) = aT(v)

for vectors u, v in V and scalar a in F.

Reality is a bijective linear map with God and is therefore isomorphic to God.

R <-> G

where the set or vector space of reality is both its subset and its powerset.

When quantified R ⊆ R(S) is represented as ∀x(x ∈ R →x ∈ R(S))

Therefore since reality is the subset and powerset of itself and God is reality then God is the subset and powerset of reality.

Click to expand...

Another "philosopher" that neither understands Math or God.

Jaiket said:

Eh?

Click to expand...

@Polymath257 would be able to explain what the terms mean, I'm sure.

But in this context..........

Ostronomos said:

Therefore since reality is the subset and powerset of itself and God is reality then God is the subset and powerset of reality.

Click to expand...

OK. You convinced me.

Ostronomos said:

A linear map is a mapping between vector spaces or sets V over a field F. Given two vector spaces V and W, a linear map is a map

T : V -> W

that is compatible with scalar addition and multiplication

T(u + v) = T(u) + T(v), T(av) = aT(v)

for vectors u, v in V and scalar a in F.

Reality is a bijective linear map with God and is therefore isomorphic to God.

R <-> G

where the set or vector space of reality is both its subset and its powerset.

Click to expand...

What field are you using for your scalars? And what is the additive structure for God? You also seem to be confused: is reality the bijective map? or it is another vector space that is isomorphic to God? If the latter, what is the additive structure of reality? And what, precisely, is the linear map?

When quantified R ⊆ R(S) is represented as ∀x(x ∈ R →x ∈ R(S))

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the usual definition of set containment. Not particularly relevant for vector spaces, though.

Therefore since reality is the subset and powerset of itself and God is reality then God is the subset and powerset of reality.

Click to expand...

So you actually just proved that God does NOT exist. You see, it can be proved that NO set is a power set of itself. And if God has that property, you have just conclusively proved there is no God.

Jaiket said:

Eh?

Click to expand...

Linear maps are functions *between* vector spaces. So to make the claim that reality *is* a bijective linear map with God and is also isomorphic to God is already highly suspicious.

The nonsense with the power set, though, is what definitively shows the self-contradiction.

Ostronomos said:

A linear map is a mapping between vector spaces or sets V over a field F. Given two vector spaces V and W, a linear map is a map

T : V -> W

that is compatible with scalar addition and multiplication

T(u + v) = T(u) + T(v), T(av) = aT(v)

for vectors u, v in V and scalar a in F.

Reality is a bijective linear map with God and is therefore isomorphic to God.

R <-> G

where the set or vector space of reality is both its subset and its powerset.

When quantified R ⊆ R(S) is represented as ∀x(x ∈ R →x ∈ R(S))

Therefore since reality is the subset and powerset of itself and God is reality then God is the subset and powerset of reality.

Click to expand...

Yet a bio conscious body owning life span average only as old as they are owns death makes the claims.

What theist human sciences never discluded self.

When they don't live as an expressed sub set.

God is not detailing a subset if you claim God owned it in presence.

God O circle owner is stone mass.
Heavens what you live within mass gas spirit.

You are only ever just a human who can think.

The lesser body closest form an ape.

If you travel back in time by removal of presence to exist as a subset. First you would become that ape.

Then in the same shift the ape would become a body form never expressed before.

What you quantify is a sub set held in bracketing applied to all origin forms not any sub set.

Reason light is constant.
Time does not exist as day counting is human inferred.

A truth teller says time is not relative as light gases burning is a constant.

Numbers counting hence does not exist.

No day in other words used just a light constant.

Polymath257 said:

What field are you using for your scalars? And what is the additive structure for God? You also seem to be confused: is reality the bijective map? or it is another vector space that is isomorphic to God? If the latter, what is the additive structure of reality? And what, precisely, is the linear map?

Click to expand...

Reality is the bijective map that is isomorphic to God.

Yes, that is the usual definition of set containment. Not particularly relevant for vector spaces, though.

So you actually just proved that God does NOT exist. You see, it can be proved that NO set is a power set of itself. And if God has that property, you have just conclusively proved there is no God.

Click to expand...

Paradoxes are not always self-contradictory. Reality is a paradox because it contains reality while being contained by reality (hence subset and powerset). This is undeniable.

I have successfully proven that reality is more than the sum of its material parts.

Ostronomos said:

Reality is the bijective map that is isomorphic to God.

Click to expand...

And that makes no sense. Bijective maps are not isomorphic: they are isomorphisms. There is a big difference.

Paradoxes are not always self-contradictory. Reality is a paradox because it contains reality while being contained by reality (hence subset and powerset). This is undeniable.

Click to expand...

Which shows that using set theory is inappropriate here. There is no *set* that is its own power set.

I have successfully proven that reality is more than the sum of its material parts.

Click to expand...

No, all you have done is said a few nonsense phrases and claimed to have a proof. But, it is clear you don't understand the math you are using.

Polymath257 said:

So you actually just proved that God does NOT exist. You see, it can be proved that NO set is a power set of itself. And if God has that property, you have just conclusively proved there is no God.

Click to expand...

OK. You convinced me.

Males lying. Science.

Science contradicted God's presence.

God said science O earth.

All products power from earth.

Sun one time only reacted in its body attacked reacted earth.

Memory in science two reactive O bodies God. Not the same God. Two reactions itself. Big bang cold sun body. Blasting converting earth mass.

Consciousness by light.

Mind thought about memory history sun as big bang.

Consciousness nowhere else.

First lie.

Then their claim in thinking being informed I react. Yet thinking is thought past tense. The reaction removed presence.

God O earth went nowhere did not react. O God remained not changed. Theme the reacted mass reacted body not considered as God.

String theist today using information as it has to exist first to claim informed said he will change God but not change God. React but not actually react. Just channel.

Described in medical healer science review self possessed by science falsifying information by his status I want. I know is informed by information. Want coerced his self is informed.

Theist then lies.

Said I will not change God. Time shift removing mass by nuclear is not God.

Exactly how he thinks about God earth science given information.

Polymath257 said:

And that makes no sense. Bijective maps are not isomorphic: they are isomorphisms. There is a big difference.




Which shows that using set theory is inappropriate here. There is no *set* that is its own power set.

Click to expand...

You are once again sadly mistaken. Reality is the set of all sets and thus poses a paradox. The only way out of this paradox or tautological truth is to assume two senses of containment: descriptive and topological. Please, get with it.

No, all you have done is said a few nonsense phrases and claimed to have a proof. But, it is clear you don't understand the math you are using.

Click to expand...

You are correct in one sense. But I do understand enough set theory to apply it to my reality-theoretic extension of logic.

Ostronomos said:

You are once again sadly mistaken. Reality is the set of all sets and thus poses a paradox. The only way out of this paradox or tautological truth is to assume two senses of containment: descriptive and topological. Please, get with it.

Click to expand...

This only shows you don't understand either set theory or topology. There is no 'set of all sets'. There is a *class* of all sets, but it is not a set. And topology has nothing to do with this issue.

You are correct in one sense. But I do understand enough set theory to apply it to my reality-theoretic extension of logic.

Click to expand...

Not exactly earth-shattering, I have to say.

Ostronomos said:

A linear map is a mapping between vector spaces or sets V over a field F.

Click to expand...

Polymath257 already covered basically everything of import here, but I would not just for the sake of completeness that one speaks of a vector space V or "a set V over a field F" (preferably, something more akin to "a triple consisting of a set V together with two operations * and + defined over a field F satisfying the following axioms..."). A vector space is by definition defined over a field. It is also a little redundant to first take as given a vector space (i.e., a set equipped with all of that additional structure required of vector spaces) and then define linear maps as you do. A central feature of vector spaces and of their structure is that maps between them are linear.
Finally, the entirety of the references to vector spaces is completely unnecessary, as the only connection between them and your reference to God in your "proof" is in terms of elementary/naive set theory, where you introduce a contradiction which, if in entered into an actual proof, would only be of use to prove the contrary via a reductio-type proof or proof-by-contradiction. Here, it's just nonsense.

Polymath257 said:

This only shows you don't understand either set theory or topology. There is no 'set of all sets'.

Click to expand...

Oh, c'mon! What's next?? I suppose you also think there's no set A such that A contains all sets which don't contain themselves!