On Jan 11, 12:54 am, 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. > > > Regards, WM > > I already SHOWED you that path by diagonalizing each countable set of > infinite paths of the complete infinite binary tree, but you REFUSE to > see it as usual. This is a trivial corollary of Cantor's argument. It > is YOUR misinterpretation of Cantors, and your obvious inability to > deal with such level of thought that make you derive silly and > ridiculous statements all of which are frankly erroneous. > > You see to like the concept of definable reals although frankly > speaking you yourself do not know exactly that is and how to deal with > it. Anyhow > > Zuhair
1) rays through countably many ordinal points are dense in the paths
2) a breadth-first traversal of the tree see the antidiagonal result not follow, and traverses
These are generally refused, or, more often: ignored.