Date: Jan 14, 2013 4:12 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 191
In article

<5c02c16c-1000-4633-a75d-666142330833@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 13 Jan., 23:51, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > In article

> > <b69929e5-f161-4923-839c-6d822b315...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

> >

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

> > > On 13 Jan., 22:26, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> >

> > > > One does not distinguish one infinite path from all others by anything

> > > > less that an infinite set of nodes. Actually any infinite subset of the

> > > > infinite set of nodes from any infinite path is enough to distinguish it

> > > > from all others, but no finite subset of its node set is sufficient

> >

> > > and no infinite set can be given other than by a finite definition.

> >

> > > Regards, WM

> >

> > But any listing of infinite binary sequences such as can define a path

>

> No infinite binary sequence can be listed.

In that case every set of binary sequences satisfies the definition of

uncountability.

> No infinite binary sequence is used in Cantor's "proof".

Not in his first one. But his second one involves uncountably many of

them.

>

> Regards, WM

--