|
|
Re: FAILURE OF THE DISTINGUISHABILITY ARGUMENT. THE TRIUMPH OF
CANTOR: THE REALS ARE UNCOUNTABLE!
Posted:
Jan 11, 2013 6:44 AM
|
|
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?
Regards, WM
|
|
