In article <286b741f-0138-443e-be1d-09416a063307@ia3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 27 Feb., 21:05, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > His is not an argument. It is the received paradigm. > > His opinion (argument or something else) is obviously self- > contradictory because the list > 1 > 1, 2 > 1, 2, 3 > ... > cannot contain anything that requires more than one line to be in the > list.
You "list" required 4 lines. > > > > > > Or do you think it is not better than > > > mine? > > > > Allowing, for the moment, that that to which you refer may be > > characterized as an argument, there is no issue of "better". > > You are the dissenter and have the burden of proof. > > My proof is simple. The list that I constructed cannot contain > anything that requires more than one line.
So lets see you produce the one line that contains everything in your 4 line list above, and works for every extension of that list. > > But that is not under discussion here.
What is under discussion here is why WM thinks he should be able to push his extremely minority view on a world which quite properly sees him mathematically incompetent.
> Your task is to find any > inconsistent step in my proof that the Binary Tree does not allow to > distinguish more than countably many real numbers, even by infinite > names/paths.
Our task is to point out to any innocent lurkers the falseness of WM's claims, so that others do not become infected with his delusions. --
