Virgil
Posts:
4,661
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 191
Posted:
Jan 14, 2013 4:12 PM
|
|
In article
<5c02c16c-1000-4633-a75d-666142330833@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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
--
|
|
