```Date: Dec 13, 2012 4:19 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: On the infinite binary Tree

On 13 Dez., 20:47, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:> > Cantor did not accept non-definable reals. If he had, he would have> > seen that his proof fails.>> No Cantor's proof survives non parameter free definability. We don't> need every real to be definable by a parameter free formula in order> for Cantor's proof to go through.Wrong. Undefinable reals are undefinable. Completely undefined. Butthat is of little interest. Our concern is that the Binary Treecontradicts Cantor's proof.> That's your simple mistake, you> think Cantor's proof requires that all reals must be parameter free> definable, but this is not the case. Cantor's proof works in a> flawless manner even if MOST of the reals are non parameter free> definable.At least if we want to know the diagonal, we need every line to beexcplicitly defined.And in fact most of the reals are undefinable.> Actually Cantor's proof mounts to the conclusion that MOST> reals are non parameter free definable reals, of course he saw that,> this is obvious really.Obvious is only that you have no idea of that matter. Cantor was nothorrified by the idea that all definable reals belong to a countableset because he thought that this idea is wrong.Fact is: If all list entries are definable and the diagonal isdefinable too, then Cantor's proof proves the uncountability ofdefinable reals. If not all list entries are definable, then there isno diagonal at all.Regards, WM
```