> Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 03:07:35 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse: > > >> You've already agreed (in another post) that no countable set of paths >> includes them all. > > I have agreed that I have used a set of paths that does not include > them all. If I had used all finite definitions, then all paths were > included as far as "all" is a meaningful notion.
You've split the thread again by making multiple replies to one post. I'll answer where you agreed to the uncountability, not here.