In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 24 Mrz., 16:59, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 24, 4:30 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Have you shown that "one can or cannot". > > > > > > > > Yes or no please. > > > > > > Please answer the question. > > > > > I did so. Given ZFC: one can > > > > So WM has made two claims > > > > Given ZFC: I cannot show if one can or cannot > > Wrong. Do you really find it necessary to lie in order to maintain > your position?
Why not when you do?
> And what is the reason to defend a position that is > based upon blatant lies?
Our question exactly!
> Given ZFC, everybody can easily see what I > have shown. Alas, nobody has looked for it hitherto.
No one can see into your Wolkenmuekenheim from outside, and what you claim does not hold outside your Wolkenmuekenheim. > > > > Given ZFC: I can show that one can > > > > Seems that in Wolkenmuekenheim everything can > > change including what WM is able to show. > > > > > Please answer this question (the best way for our readers to > > > understand the difference between pot. and act. infinity): > > > What is the difference between the Binary Tree that constains only all > > > finite paths and the Binary Tree that contains in addition all > > > actually infinite paths?
Neither of them can exist as described above outside Wolkenmuekenheim.
> > > The only difference is that in the second case you consider > > some subsets of the nodes to be paths, that are not considered > > to be paths in the first case. > > Well, that is a correct description.
Not when a path is reqequired, as it usually is, to be MAXIMAL, so that no proper part of a path can be called a path.