Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:23:41 -0600
In article <1116958024.014712.115450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> David C. Ullrich wrote:
> > Hint: infinite sets are not the same as finite sets. What you say
> > is "impossible to assume" is not something we _assume_, but it's
> > true. And very easy to prove.
>
> I can imagine that you are ready to prove that in 1-2-3-4-... there are
> more dashes than numbers. But it is nevertheless inacceptable.
>
> In my tree the question is not whether it is an infinite set or not,
> but whether every node is member of a line with finite enumeration.
>
> If no branching is possible without a new node (because a branching is
> a node), then "the infinite" does not at all help you. *That* is very
> easy to prove.
How is it that all those things that WM declares so easy to prove still
remain unproven?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- References:
- Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: An observation
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
