```Date: Jan 24, 2013 3:00 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: ZFC and God

On 23 Jan., 23:57, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> In article> <56122973-de7e-4200-8780-cd571b20d...@n8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,>>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> > On 23 Jan., 19:56, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:>> > > > There it has meanwhile turned out ... But see it with your own eyes> > > > what you would not believe if I told you.>> > > We believe that the moderators ofhttp://math.stackexchange.comfound> > > the posting "of very low quality".>> > Here you can read it:> >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/complete%20tree.doc>> That  paper  starts with>> "How to distinguish between the complete and the incomplete infinite> binary tree?>> "How can we distinguish between that infinite binary tree that contains> only all finite initial segments of the infinite paths and the complete> infinite binary tree that in addition also contains all infinite path.">> But there is no difference between them anywhere outside of WMYTHEOLOGY.>> If there were, one would also have to have a difference between the set> which contains all finite initial segments of |N  and |N itselfCorrect. There is no difference. Therefore we can, in mathematics, useonly the Binary Tree that contains all finite paths. More cannot bedistinguished by nodes. It is the same set that contains all possiblebit-sequences and is isomorphic to the set of all decimal fractionsthat can be applied in mathematics and in Cantor's diagonal argument.We can neither distinguish nor apply by digits more than allterminating decimal fractions. Therefore all that appears in Cantor'slist is terminating decimal fractions. Therefore Cantor proves theuncountability of a countable set.Regards, WM
```