In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 31 Jan., 10:31, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <65959390-0681-4d8a-8e3c-7b1e8dad9...@w7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 31 Jan., 01:58, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <397a90fb-2e3e-411f-ae40-2365cadd1...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > I have developed a new proof-technique, namely proof by ignorance > > > > > > That is hardly new for Wolkenmuekenheim, but has been the ONLY standard > > > > there for years. > > > > > Thinks are easy if things are easy. > > > Consider a box with a dozen different pralines. If I take three out of > > > the boxh and return it to you, you can decide which I did not take out > > > by looking at the remaining ones. > > > > > Consider a Binary Tree. When I remove or colour some paths, you can > > > decide which are remaining by looking at the uncoloured paths. > > > > > And finally consider a Binary Tree with uncountably many paths. When I > > > colour a countable set of paths, then you have to decide by looking at > > > the remainings which paths have survived. > > > > While WM may include every node in his countable set of paths, he does > > not, and cannot, simultanteously include every path. > > I include every possible combination of nodes that reside at finite > levels. If there are not nodes residing at infinite levels, then I > include every path. If you don't agree, show another path.
Since in WM's world of WMytheology there are no actually infinite sets of nodes allowed, and in our world every path is an actually infinite set of nodes, his world does NOT have any paths at all. --