In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 13 Jan., 23:51, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <b69929e5-f161-4923-839c-6d822b315...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 13 Jan., 22:26, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > One does not distinguish one infinite path from all others by anything > > > > less that an infinite set of nodes. Actually any infinite subset of the > > > > infinite set of nodes from any infinite path is enough to distinguish it > > > > from all others, but no finite subset of its node set is sufficient > > > > > and no infinite set can be given other than by a finite definition. > > > > > Regards, WM > > > > But any listing of infinite binary sequences such as can define a path > > No infinite binary sequence can be listed.
In that case every set of binary sequences satisfies the definition of uncountability.
> No infinite binary sequence is used in Cantor's "proof".
Not in his first one. But his second one involves uncountably many of them. > > Regards, WM --