In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> 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.
You last posting does not make any false claims true however vociferously it claims to do so.
> But those who try but > cannot not understand these few sentences will not understand the > proof in either form. Have you tried?
One cannot understand what does not exist, and the claimed proof does not exist as it is not a proof at all.
> > > 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?
If those pages were WM's, there is little point in trying, as WM cannot produce proofs of things already proved false.
In fact, there is considerable evidence that WM cannot usually produce proofs of things known to be true either, unless he copies them from others. > > Regards, WM