On 11 Jan., 09:54, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 10, 10:12 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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 and tell me by what combination of > > nodes you identified it. Unless you cannot do that I think that your > > babbling about more than countably many paths is of the same quality > > as your babbling about Cantor's statements, which you obviously have > > never read, let alone understood.
> I already SHOWED you that path by diagonalizing each countable set of > infinite paths of the complete infinite binary tree
You showed nothing but your intellectual impotence. An anti-diagonal of the set of all finite paths cannot differ from all finite paths at a finite index. But there are no infinite indices.
Name a path that is missing in my Binary Tree containing all nodes constructed from countably many paths.
> It > is YOUR misinterpretation of Cantors,
Have you meanwhile found a quote of Cantor's that supports your assertion?