Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: amorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan Morgan)
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 17:24:43 +0000 (UTC)
In article <MPG.1cff9fda6b659940989d2e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Virgil said:
>> All unending paths in an unending binary tree contain infinitely many
>> nodes.
>Most of which are infinitely far from the root.
Actually, none of them are. That doesn't qualify as "most". It doesn't
even qualify as "some". It is true that, for any particular node, there
are an infinite number of nodes further away from the root than that
node. However, every node is a finite distance away from the root.
This is exactly the same mistake that you make the the integers (no
infinite integers, but infinitely many integers).
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
- 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: 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: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by Date: Re: multiple correlated random matrices
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|