On 26 Dez., 10:12, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > 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,
So you do no longer claim that the Cantor-argument works by digits or nodes?
> 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.
Although I told you all the nodes of my paths (namely all nodes of the Binary Tree) and no nodes of your paths (namely the empty set of nodes), you cannot distinguish my paths and your paths. But according to Cantor's argument, you should be able to distinguish the diagonal by nodes only.
> > 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.
Object to what? Object that my paths can be distinguished from your paths by nodes? Didn't you just say this few lines above?