Re: abundance of irrationals!)

In article <MPG.1ced3bf54b70fa1e989c2c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I didn't disagree that the branches (or paths, as I
> > called them) are infinitely long. Our disagreement
> > is this: you think this invalidates my earlier claim
> > (that each node in the tree is represented by a finite
> > path) and I do not.
> if a branch is infinitely long, how long is the string of bits that specifies
> the node at the end (or finitely close to the end) of that branch? If the
> node
> is infinitely far down a branch, it requires infinite bits, one for each
> fork.

But no nodes are "infinitely far" down a branch. That is the same error
that TO makes with naturals, assuming that there has to be an infinite
one. Apparently he does not learn from his mistakes.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds
    ... > missing any sequence of digits. ... > Do you agree or disagree that rule Non-Occurence Introduction 1 ... If d is infinite this ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds
    ... > missing any sequence of digits. ... > Do you agree or disagree that rule Non-Occurence Introduction 1 ... If d is infinite this ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: infinity
    ... A larger infinity than the infinite number that have ... >> Which statement do you disagree with? ... If O is to be a"proper" subseet of I, there must be some member of I not ... Note that O contains ball 1, and for each nth ball in O, O also ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > and why I don't consider them infinite. ... Without some adequate and precise definition of finiteness versus ... > disagree, so I don't know why you argue with it. ... We argue with it because, given the set theories that we are working ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Tony Orlow writes: ... > Dik T. Winter wrote: ... >> that the set of finitely long numbers is not infinite, ... Do you actually disagree with that assumption? ...
    (sci.math)