Date: Jan 31, 2013 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician

On 31 Jan., 16:35, David C. Ullrich <> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:30:12 -0800 (PST), david petry

> Because people here don't object to his "philosophy".

To "prove, once and for all" is not *philosophy*.
Unfortunately it is fact that the gang of matheologians is active
around the world and try to exert force upon non-matheologians.
> The problem is that WM's version  of the technical
> details is always nonsense.

From the standpoint of a nutcake every cake without nuts is nonsense.
Try to follow the discussion here and learn, if you can, what you have
missed hitherto.

It is possible to colour the complete infinite Binary Tree by
colouring a countable set of paths. Therefore it is impossible to
distinguish more than countably many paths by infinite sequences of
digits (here is a small gap in the argument, but you should be able to
conclude from binary paths on decimal representations).

> His arguments about
> binary trees are simply _wrong_. Wrong in basic
> simply ways,

alas, you cannot point to any mistake. I know that attitude.

Regards, WM