Date: Feb 28, 2013 6:00 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 27 Feb., 21:05, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> His is not an argument.  It is the received paradigm.

His opinion (argument or something else) is obviously self-
contradictory because the list
1
1, 2
1, 2, 3
...
cannot contain anything that requires more than one line to be in the
list.

>
> > Or do you think it is not better than
> > mine?

>
> Allowing, for the moment, that that to which you refer may be
> characterized as an argument, there is no issue of "better".
> You are the dissenter and have the burden of proof.


My proof is simple. The list that I constructed cannot contain
anything that requires more than one line.

But that is not under discussion here. Your task is to find any
inconsistent step in my proof that the Binary Tree does not allow to
distinguish more than countably many real numbers, even by infinite
names/paths.

Regards, WM