Virgil
Posts:
4,486
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
Posted:
Dec 29, 2012 3:40 PM
|
|
In article
<5902a2c7-147a-4db9-b45a-1657a245099c@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 28 Dez., 20:19, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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...",
>
> Why? Because my enumeration is parameter free.
Your ennumeration is existence-free. It does not exist.
>
> > 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,
>
> among a gang of big mouths like you?
WM's mouth dwarfs everyone else's here.
>
> 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?
>
> In order to refute Cantor one need not study nonsense like uncountable
> languages or parametric definitions without a parameter.
And NOT studying things is WM's modus operandi!
--
|
|
