In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 18 Jun., 20:32, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > In article > > <85db7468-1f62-407e-8232-aa31838b5...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 17 Jun., 21:20, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Why should the subset belong to one element of the list of > > > > > paths > > > > > > It doesn't. > > > > "the tree contains a subset of nodes that is > > > > *not* contained in one element of the list of paths" > > > > > As it is neither contained in a path of the tree, this observation is > > > completely irrelevant. > > > > If the original list of paths is no more than countable and the tree is > > a maxima; infinite binary tree, then there are necessarily paths in that > > tree not in the list. > > This is so because countably many paths can cover all nodes but cannot > > cover all paths > > but they do, nevertheless
They can cover all nodes, but Cantor proved that for any countable set of paths there are other paths. > > > as Cantor proved. > > Therefore he was wrong.
In a war between WM and Cantor, WM will always lose. > > During the next 100 years we will laugh about his giant joke
We do not even have to wait to laugh at WM. He is laughable now, and has been for years.
- and > then he will be forgotten by mathematicians, except by some > historians.
WM will be forgotten long before Cantor is. If it were not for WM's continual postings here, he would have been forgotten already.