Date: Jan 13, 2013 3:19 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 191
In article

<e014c24c-2d2a-46fb-b407-0e16aaa837a2@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 12 Jan., 23:21, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > In article

> > <c971e75b-20e3-4761-b39a-aab5a20a6...@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > On 12 Jan., 12:45, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Jan 12, 11:56 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> > > > > Matheology § 191

> >

> > > > > The complete infinite Binary Tree can be constructed by first

> > > > > constructing all aleph_0 finite paths and then appending to each path

> > > > > all aleph_0 finiteley definable tails from 000... to 111...

> >

> > > > No it cannot be constructed in that manner, simply because it would no

> > > > longer be a BINARY tree.

> >

> > > No? What node or path would be there that is not a node or path of the

> > > Binary Tree? This is again an assertion of yours that has no

> > > justification, like many you have postes most recently, unfortunately.

> >

> > Your claim that there are only aleph_0 possible tails is falsified by

> > the Cantor diagonal argument:

> >

> > Any listing of those tails as binary sequences allows the anti-diagonal

> > constriction of a tail not listed. and if you cannot list them, you have

> > no proof that they are only countable in number.

>

> A listing of all finite initial segments of all possible tails is

> possible.

> Cantor's diagonal argument leads to an anti-diagonal that differs from

> every finite initial segment by a finite initial segment which is a

> self-contradiction since all possible finite initial segments that

> possibly could differ are already there.

WM is TOTALLY WRONG!

AS USUAL!!

Any non-finite sequence, such as an anti-diagonal, NECESSARILY differs

from every finite sequence.

--