Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 25 May 2005 04:41:51 -0700
Virgil wrote:
> > If you prefer "is", you may use it. That does not matter. It is
> > obviously impossible that the set of paths is uncountable when the set
> > of nodes is countable, because every pair of paths springs off from one
> > node, while one path leads to that node. Try to find an error n the
> > arguing, not in the result.
>
> For finite paths
There are no finite paths in my tree. Terminating rationals are
completed by strings of zeros. For that sake enough zeros are in the
tree.
>
> The set of these unbounded paths can mapped bijectively to P(N), whereas
> the set of nodes can be mapped bijectively to N.
Consistency of set theory is questioned, hence I do not accept Cantor's
proof as an argument.
line number n
0 0.
1 0 1
2 0 1 0 1
... ..................
1) Each real 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 set.
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.
Please point out which of these simple steps is (are) wrong.
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- References:
- Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robin Chapman
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: absolut continuity...?
- 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
|