On 9 Dez., 22:35, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <2bb6f691-34d5-4b9c-898d-d4eb22f8c...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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?