In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 31 Jan., 16:35, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@math.okstate.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:30:12 -0800 (PST), david petry > > > Because people here don't object to his "philosophy". > > To "prove, once and for all" is not *philosophy*.
WM has yet to "prove, once and for all" anything that mathematicians in genera, those free from the corruptions of WMytheology, do not accept.
> Unfortunately it is fact that the gang of matheologians is active > around the world and try to exert force upon non-matheologians.
Unfortunately it is fact that the gang of WMytheologians is active around the world and try to exert force upon non-WMytheologians.
> > > > The problem is that WM's version of the technical > > details is always nonsense. > > From the standpoint of a nutcake every cake without nuts is nonsense. > Try to follow the discussion here and learn, if you can, what you have > missed hitherto.
We have also managed to miss many other of the world's ills, but do not feel bereft because of it. > > It is possible to colour the complete infinite Binary Tree by > colouring a countable set of paths. Therefore it is impossible to > distinguish more than countably many paths by infinite sequences of > digits (here is a small gap in the argument, but you should be able to > conclude from binary paths on decimal representations).
Every such countably infinite set of such paths proves existnce of at least as many non-members as members by the very proof of its countability. > > > His arguments about > > binary trees are simply _wrong_. Wrong in basic > > simply ways, > > alas, you cannot point to any mistake.
Those who are willfully blind, as WM is, will fail to see what everyone else cannot avoid seeing. --