In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Zuhair's ""intellectual impotence" is far more fertile than WM's.
> An anti-diagonal of the set of all finite paths cannot differ from all > finite paths at a finite index.
It does not have to differ from all at the same index if it can differ from different ones at different indices, which it can do.
> But there are no infinite indices.
Irrelevant! > > Name a path that is missing in my Binary Tree containing all nodes > constructed from countably many paths.
Show that your set of paths is countable by listing them and non-members will then be easy to find. > > > It > > is YOUR misinterpretation of Cantors, > > Have you meanwhile found a quote of Cantor's that supports your > assertion?