Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: FAILURE OF THE DISTINGUISHABILITY ARGUMENT. THE TRIUMPH OF CANTOR:
THE REALS ARE UNCOUNTABLE!

Replies: 47   Last Post: Jan 12, 2013 11:33 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 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
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.
--