In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 12 Apr., 20:51, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So do you claim that d is not in the list but all its finite initial > > > segments (d_1, ..., d_n) are in the list? > > > > YES . Finally . > > What does distinguish d from all its finite initial segments (FISs)?
Only that d is the union of the set of all its FISs. > > > > > If so, what is the > > >difference > > > d \ U(d_1, ..., d_n) > > > d and (d_1, ..., d_n) understood as sets of nodes of paths in decimal > > > tree. > > > > The tree is irrelevant unless you can do a small-step STEP by STEP > > proof , using LOGICALLY VALID of how it's relevant and how it relates > > to the LIST . Cantor's argument was all about the LIST ,not some made- > > up tree . > > Nevertheless the decimal tree is a representation of all real numbers > of the unit inerval. And Cantor stated his proof as another and > simpler proof for the uncountability of the real numbers. > > Do you reject those parts of mathematics which could spoil his proof?
So far, WM has totally failed to show that ANY parts of mathematics are capable of "spoiling" Cantor's diagonal argument. What goes on in Wolkenmuekenheim is not really mathematics. --