On Jul 15, 6:46 pm, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 15, 4:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 15 Jul., 21:17, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You cannot be too unmathematical to miss the fact that every B_k > > > > contains a countable set of infinite paths, > > > > "contains". Element or subset? > > > In this case that is irrelevant, because the countably set is empty. > > WM makes no sense. He talks about B_k "containing" some other thing. > Then I ask is "contain" meant to mean 'has as elements' or 'has as > subsets'. Then he says it doesn't matter, because the thing mentioned > that B_k "contains" is a countable empty set. > > WM needs to just put his claim in plain mathematical terms.
Wm doesn't have to do anything like that. He is a *Professor*. For *years* he has been able to get away with indoctrinating his students, intimidating and browbeating them into regurgitating his crap on exams, and he is quite obviously proud of that. Besides, as you well know, you are asking something the good professor simply *cannot* do. He cannot understand or produce a mathematical statement, so asking him to do so is downright immoral --- on your part!
