Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 25 May 2005 04:12:01 -0700
Virgil wrote:
> In article <1116939502.814879.192170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Cantor and the binary tree.
> >
> > If we accept that, in binary digits, SUM{n = 1 ... oo} 2^-n = 0.111...
> > = 1
> >
> > then all the real numbers of the interval [0,1] are realized as
> > infinite paths of the binary tree
> > .
> > 0 1
> > 0 1 0 1
> > ..................
> >
> > too (read from top to bottom). Each number is given by a path
> > stretching over infinitely many nodes (bits). All nodes (bits) of the
> > tree are countable. The paths are not, according to Cantor's famous
> > diagonal proof.
>
> So far so good.
> One does not assume it, one proves it, as I have done several times.
>
> Here is an outline of that proof:
>
> Every node is represented by a terminating binary (starting at "." and
> terminating at the node itself in the tree above) which is like a subset
> of the rationals, which are countable.
>
> Every unending path is represented by a non-terminating binary (also
> starting at "." but never ending), which surject onto the real interval
> [0,1], and are thus as uncountable as the reals.
>
> That WM choses to reject proofs that show him wrong does not invalidate
> such proofs.
Cantor's proof is questioned, hence I do not accept it as an argument.
Please find out at which step my arguing fails. As you seem to accept
the first points, you may start at point 3.
1) Each number of (0,1) is given by a path stretching over infinitely
many nodes (bits).
2) All nodes (bits) of the tree belong to a countable se.
3) A node can only exist within a path.
4) Any node increases the number of paths by 1 from 1 coming in, to 2
going out. 2 - 1 = 1.
5) Any node increases the number of nodes by 1.
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- References:
- Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- 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
|