In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 25 Dez., 21:59, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <76daea40-3902-4687-ae1c-53fe5356b...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 24 Dez., 20:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <d85d67ab-aa37-4091-9474-a089288c3...@x10g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 23 Dez., 21:20, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Also the proof of Cantor is actually about uncountability of paths > > > > > > that are distinguishable on finite basis. > > > > > > > That is the point! > > > > > > The Cantor argument only deals with distinguishability on a finite basis > > > > (each individual listed entry differs from the "diagonal" at an > > > > "individual finite position") but shows that it can occur infinitely > > > > often > > > > > without leaving the finite domain, i.e., "the Binary Tree that contains > > > nothing but all finite paths. > >" > > Any such tree is incomplete as a binary tree, as it necessarily contains > > paths of all sorts of different lengths (different numbers of nodes or > > numbers of branches), while in a complete infinite binary tree all paths > > are of exactly the same length. > > > > I construct the complete Binary Tree, i.e., all its nodes, by > countably many infinite paths, all of same length.
Then why do you say above that "the Binary Tree that contains nothing but all finite paths."?
> Try to find and > identify by nodes only one further path.
AS soon as you tell us what paths you have included in your tree, we will be able to tell you at least some of the ones that you have left out. But until you show us your paths we have no way of knowing which ones are yours and which ones are not yours.
> Then your claim may be > considered by rational and sober thinkers.
It already has been considered by rational and sober thinkers and accepted by them and it is only drunk 'tinkers' like yourself who object.
> Everything else may be > considered by drunk tinkers.
Even as a drunk 'tinker' WM is no good.
No matter how he tinkers with things they do not work. --