On Dec 12, 9:45 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 12 Dez., 18:29, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 12, 9:02 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 12 Dez., 17:19, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 12, 1:32 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Dez., 02:01, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Showing > > > > > > a contradiction would qualify, but it's been well > > > > > > established that you don't know how to do that. > > > > > > Consider how a union of paths is counted (I copy > > > > > from another posting, therefore the quotation symbols): > > > > > Ascii diagrams don't qualify as a contradiction. > > > > Why should pictures, diagrams, acoustic signals etc. qualify less than > > > sequences of symbols? > > > With pictures, diagrams, etc. the possibilities for tomfoolery > > are endless. A formal proof is more resistant to human > > error. Anyway, if your diagrams are sound, translating > > them into formal proofs should not be out of reach. > > > > Every bit of information, in what form ever, can > > > be used in proofs. But here you are: > > > > The union of all natural numbers is, according to set theory, omega. > > > If *actual* infinity is meant, this is plainly impossible, because the > > > natural numbers count themselves. > > > No natural number counts how many natural numbers there are. > > > > This leads to the result that the same structure, namely the tree with > > > all its nodes, contains only a countable set of paths and > > > simultaneously it contains an uncountable set of paths. > > > > And this is a contradiction. > > > That actually would be a contradiction if it were true. > > It is true as can be seern from my last posting. But those who try but > cannot not understand these few sentences will not understand the > proof in either form. > Have you tried?
Yes. It was riddled with obvious errors.
> > If it is true, then you can formalize it. If you do that > > then you will get attention. > > Would you be willing to go through those roughly 20 pages? And if so, > would you be able to understand it then?
I probably wouldn't be willing to do so, given your record. But the good news is that first order logic is mechanizable. So you could produce a computer-readable representation of your proof and have it verified by a proof verifier. Then I wouldn't need to read the whole thing; just the premises and the conclusion.