Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 10:40:55 -0600
In article <MPG.1cff9fda6b659940989d2e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The number of leaf nodes exactly equals the number of ending or finite
> > paths in any finite binary tree (in which all paths end).
> And which you have conveniently dispensed with for the sake of your argument.
> Typical Cantorian prestadigitation.
That Cantor's hands are quicker than TO's eyes only demonstrates the
slowness of TO's eyes.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- 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: Ron Sperber
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: L^1, L^2 convergence
- Next by Date: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):