Re: Cantor and the binary tree



Virgil wrote:

> Is it the "bunches" or the "paths" that WM is alleging do not exist as
> individuals?

The bunches.
>
> If WM is speaking of paths, then the a maximal binary tree, by his
> standards, has no paths at all, since no path exists in a maximal binary
> tree which does not share each "edge" with some other path, though the
> particuar other path depends on which "edge" is to be shared.

I am glad to say that you are fully correct. Paths which do not differ
by any edge are due to binary representations which cannot be
distinguished. But why do you want to distinguish them, if you know you
cannot?

Regards, WM

.