Re: Cantor and the binary tree



Virgil wrote:

> For example, WM has still not satisfactorily explained his alleged
> bijection between nodes and maximal paths in a maximal binary tree.

I do not need a bijection between nodes and not separating paths. There
is a bijection between nodes and separating bunches (=subsets) of
paths. In fact, as you will consider, all the edges of the tree are
countable.
Paths which have no edge of their own, i.e., which do never separate
within the infinite tree need, not be considered, because they do not
exist as individual numbers.

Regards, WM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... I used one maximal binary tree, which has both branches and paths. ... >>> showed that the branches biject with the naturals and the paths bijecte ... > So that unless TO can construct a bijection between N (the infinite set ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... And infinite paths are not produced. ... For a maximal binary tree, there is no such bijection between maximal ... There is, however, a bijection between the set of nodes of such a tree ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... >> If you are talking about the totality of paths in a maximal binary tree ... >> In a previous post I constructed a bijection between the set of nodes to ... >> the naturals in which the root node maps onto 1, ... I constructed a bijection between the maximal paths ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> members, but depend in some way on the actual nature of the members ... > injection of a smaller into a larger or a bijection between two of the ... > If either the number of characters in the alphabet or the string lengh ... One single maximal binary tree for both bijections. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Two results of set geometry
    ... >>> There is a bijection between the set of all paths representing real ... The mapping you gave is from nodes to paths. ... traversal of the tree still differs by some finite amount from 2/3. ... at which the approximation to 2/3 is closer than epsilon. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading