Re: Cantor and the binary tree

In article <1116958733.666723.248900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Robert Kolker wrote:
> > mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > of paths always equals that of the nodes + 1. It is simply
> impossible
> > > to assume that one of these numbers becomes uncountably infinite
> while
> > > the other remains countably infinite.
> >
> > Wrong. 2^(aleph_0) > aleph_0.
>
> That is one result. Obviously it is not consistent, because another
> proof leads to the opposite result.

Then show us that "proof". Unproven claims butter no parsips.

Or is it forbidden to consider
> other proofs?

It is forbidden to claim that they exist without providing reasonable
evidence of their existence.

> Is it forbidden to think but only to repeat the old
> stuff. Point out where my proof is in error.

As your "proof" is not in evidence, only an unsupported claim of one,
the "error" is that proof is absent.
> >
> > List all the infinite binary sequences with a bijection to the
> integers.
>
> It is not possible to list them all.

Perhaps the light is finally beginning to dawn in WM's mind! That
unlistability is exactly the point!

> Therefore I constructed the tree.
> It is not a list.

And that is why it is irrelevant in deciding whether the reals can be
listed.
.

Quantcast