Re: Cantor Confusion

In article <1173715319.243468.87220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 12 Mrz., 16:41, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1173464550.644857.271...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> On 9 Mrz., 16:07, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > In article <1173438655.923501.184...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > > On 7 Mrz., 16:01, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > In article <1173215257.272668.121...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > And this tells us precisely nothing about C(oo), which you *do* use.
>
> Forget it. Use only level L(n) and the countable number of nodes C(n)
> for every n in N to determine the number of paths crossin this level.
> If you find this insufficient, then tell me what after every n may be
> imagined.

The paths in finite trees terminate at soe level n. The paths in the
infinite tree do not terminate. Do you not see the difference?
--

The levels which have a countable number of nodes do not terminate
either. Therefore there is no difference: As long as paths can exist
the cardinality of them is restricted to a countable number.

Then the alleged "union" of those infinitely many finite trees does not
produce the complete infinite binary tree, which has been repeatedly
proved to have uncountably many paths.

An uncountable set of paths cannot exist other than outside of the
tree, i.e., outside of mathematics.

Inside of mathematics but outside of WMatics.
The complete infinite binary tree exists within both ZF and NBG, both of
which are inside of mathematics but outside of WMatics.

Perhaps one day WM will be able to distinguish between his WMatics and
actual mathematics. But apparently not today.
.

Quantcast