In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 9 Dez., 00:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <77fc76f5-fa78-4e2a-8927-1f4743fef...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 8 Dez., 18:55, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > All the rest of your speech is restrictive without a clear > > > > justification other than personal favoritism for the finite and > > > > concrete descriptions. > > > > > Every node of the Binary Tree is positioned at a finite place. > > > Infinite paths cannot be defined by lists of nodes but only by finite > > > formulas describing the paths like "path of 1/3". > > > > While a single such path may require such a single definition, the set > > of all of them does not. > > The set of all of them is defined as soon as any unambiguous criterion > > for membership is defined, and that is trivially easy to do. > > > > How can it be so difficult to understand this simple fact? > > -- > > I am not interested in the set of real numbers, but in its elements > and in the question how many real numbers, each of which has its own > definition and therefore is in bijection with all others, do exist.
Each real number is in bijection with all others?
Do you mean each singleton set whose member is real number is in bijection with every other such set? That is the only meaning to your claim above that makes any sense, but it does not support any of your delusions. --