In article <27453436-4a7f-4501-a5b6-3d36ef7a4c2e@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 30 Mai, 23:01, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > And whenever WM, or anyone else, does produce one of those lists, it > > will easily be shown to be incomplete. > > I told you alredy several times that logic fails in case of infinite > sets.
Unlike the bellman, what WM tells me three times need not be , and almost always isn't, true.
> Do not argue that Cantor's proof is correct.
Do not argue that it isn't until you can come up with a proof that it isn't.
> Argue why my proof > is incorrect.
Among other reasons, because it is in conflict with Two of Cantor's theorems, and I have a great deal more trust in Cantor than I have in WM.
Argue facts, not opinions.
WM rekes not his own rede, but treads the primrose path.
> See the thread concerning the > reactions to the binary tree. Choose one or more of those counter > arguments and try to convince people who are not trapped in > matheology. That would be more commendable than parroting your stuff.
Since WM has done nothing better that to parrot his own stuff, he is hardly in a position to criticize others for doing it.
