In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 12 Jan., 12:45, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 12, 11:56 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > Matheology § 191 > > > > > The complete infinite Binary Tree can be constructed by first > > > constructing all aleph_0 finite paths and then appending to each path > > > all aleph_0 finiteley definable tails from 000... to 111... > > > > No it cannot be constructed in that manner, simply because it would no > > longer be a BINARY tree. > > > > > 0 > > > 1, 2 > > > 3, 4, 5, 6 > > > 7, ... > > > > > This Binary Tree contains aleph_0 * aleph_0 = aleph_0 paths. > > > > The complete Binary tree contains 2^aleph_0 paths and 2^aleph_0 paths > > is strictly greater than aleph_0, this is pretty much standard stuff > > Do you know the standard stuff of astrology? And astrology is by > magnitudes more scientific than the belief in numbers that not even > God could discern
WM now tries to speak for God? Though WM may well know a good deal more of astrology that we do. > > Try to discern a real number from the Binary Tree that I described > above.
I am not sure that your tree contains any real numbers. > > > that most mathematicians actually all leading mathematicians of the > > last century and this one hold to be true. > > Again you are wrong.
> And even one of the greatest, namely David Hilbert, said in a lucid > moment: > "The infinite is nowhere realized; neither is it present in nature > nor admissible as the foundation of our intellectual/reasonable > thinking - a remarkable harmony between being and thinking."
Hilbert also said: "No one will drive us from the paradise which Cantor created for us" --