|
|
Re: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
Posted:
Dec 28, 2012 2:19 PM
|
|
On Dec 28, 8:14 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> It not obvious to me, what you call parameter-free. (And you need not
> explain it, because I am not interested in your interpretation.)
> Regards, WM
If you are not interested in my interpretation of parameter free
definability (which is standard by the way) then why you answered to
my question by saying "Here is a parameter free enumeration...", you
must not attempt to answer a question of others before you understand
what others meant by their question. When I asked my question I of
course meant my interpretation of parameter free definability, and
actually I mentioned that explicitly, I of course didn't mean some
alternative explanation existing in your head. To me it was better if
you didn't answer my question, or at least say that the enumeration
you've mentioned to be just some enumeration but to go and say it is
parameter free and in response to my question about having a parameter
free definable bijection (in my sense of course since I'm the one who
is asking) is simply an act of non respect to the one who asked the
question, it is rude to do so.
By the way you said it is not obvious to you what I meant by parameter
free definable, while this is just the basics of definability of sets
and it is WELL known, this ignorance on your side that you've admitted
(which is good really) only reflects that you have little information
on those subjects. It was expected from one who aims to refute Cantor
to be more informed. It is expected from one who say that THOUSANDS of
mathematicians for a whole of a century were acting fools and
spreading nonsense to be someone who is well informed on such issues,
but Since you are obviously ignorant why go discuss matters as if you
are well informed? I think it is obvious now who is the acting fool
and spreading nonsense.
Regards,
Zuhair
|
|
