Virgil
Posts:
4,483
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: FAILURE OF THE DISTINGUISHABILITY ARGUMENT. THE TRIUMPH OF CANTOR: THE REALS ARE UNCOUNTABLE!
Posted:
Jan 11, 2013 9:04 PM
|
|
In article
<c4a1d2eb-a386-41e7-bfe2-1e9b93bfa406@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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?
All of them do.
--
|
|
