Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 31 May 2005 07:50:20 -0700
*** T. Winter wrote:
> In article <1117447786.595884.129140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> ...
> > No. It is corresponds to that node where it turns right for the last
> > time. For numbers like 1/3 we cannot know which node that is.
>
> Right, Because there is no such node.
>
> > But we
> > are investigating whether there are as many nodes as path. For hat
> > purpose it doesn't matter if we know which path corresponds to which
> > node, but we need only to know that eery path crresponds to a node.
>
> But we know it does not, 1/3 corresponds to a path, but not to a node.
There is no path in a domain without nodes!
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- References:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: *** T. Winter
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by Date: Re: Why is there no *really* useful Algebra beyond complex numbers?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):