Re: Cantor and the binary tree



Virgil wrote:

> > 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?

It is very easily proven that a branching is impossible without a node,
because, by definition, a branching _is_ a node.

Regards, WM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A function shaped like...
    ... Virgil wrote: ... branching or the square root calculation is more expensive on this chip. ... Chris Smith ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... > Virgil wrote: ... >> How is it that all those things that WM declares so easy to prove still ... > because, by definition, a branching _is_ a node. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... Virgil wrote: ... fix and pick. ... Regards, WM ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... Virgil wrote: ... > Two paths in a maximal binary tree are distinct if and only if there is ... Regards, WM ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: abundance of irrationals!)
    ... Virgil wrote: ... IFF N is infinite, then my list contains numbers with ... Regards, WM ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast