Re: Cantor Confusion

On 2 Apr., 14:34, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1175178657.434003.303...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


> It is a result of set theorey that uncountably many is greater than
> counatbly many. If you have a greater set, then there must be more
> elements than in a smaller set. If n elements exist in a set, then
> they must exist simultaneously. That means there must be some domain
> where this happens.

Yes. The domain is the set of paths. But you state there must be a *level*
where it happens. Pray show a for once a *proof* of that statement.

That is simple. There are no parts of paths outside of any leve. Paths
exist only where levels are.
>

> > > But we know that there
> > > cannot be such a level, including all infinity of the complete tree.
> >
> > Indeed, there is not. Nevertheless there are uncountably many infinite
> > paths.
>
> That is obviously wrong. The necessity of as much separation points as
> separated paths is not restricted to the finite tree. It is required
> in any case. Otherwise there must be paths with no connection to the
> root node. But those constructs are not paths.

Show a *proof* of that necessity for infinite trees.

Whether infinite or not: The laws of logic remain valid.
Even in the infinite sequence 121212... theer is no point where 1 gets
larger than 2.
Such laws show that there is no separated path without a separation
point.

> > You do not believe it, but you fail to prove it. It is just your
> > insistence that if all paths do separate from each other that there must
> > be a level where all paths are separated from each other.
>
> In particular, there must be all separation points in the tree.
>
> You say: There are all uncountably many separated paths in the tree.
> But there are not all uncountably many points of separation in the
> tree.

Right. And that is provable.

But only by another proof. Therefore there is an inconsistency in set
theory.

> Obviously bad logic. But you say, it is good logic. So let it be.
> Antilogic cannot be disproved by logic.

You are indeed not able to disprove it. Simply because you do not
understand the logic.

Not what you pretend to be understood by logic.

Regards, WM

.

Quantcast