In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jan., 19:11, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 10, 9:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 Jan., 18:47, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Your binary tree have UNCOUNTABLY many paths each defined as a > > sequence of labels of its NODES, even though it has countably many > > nodes. That's what you are not getting. Anyhow. > > I would easily get it if you could identify a path that supports your > assertion by being identified by nodes. Prove your claim by > identifying a path that is missing
We cannot determine whether a path is missing until we have a list of the paths which are not missing (and, as WM claims that there are only countably many paths, such a list is necessarily possible).
> Unless you cannot do that I think that your > babbling about more than countably many paths
Your babbling about countably many paths including all of them concedes the existence of a countable infinity, which is all that is needed for Cantor's diagonal argument to prove existence of an uncountable one. --