Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Martin Shobe <mshobe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:50:13 GMT
On 20 Jun 2005 04:09:53 -0700, mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> This no more proves countability of the set of paths than the fact that
>> lists of bits can represent all reals in [0,1] proves the reals
>> couontable. The set of all such lists, like the set of all those maximal
>> paths, is uncountable.
>
>By construction of the tree we see that all binary representations
>which differ at a finite position are represented by bunches (=
>non-empty subsets) of paths in the tree. Further we see that they can
>distinguish themselves only at nodes or branches. The occasions to do
>so are countable.
What is it you are smoking? Can I have some? Even in finite binary
trees, the number of paths is greater than the number of nodes where
branching occurs.
Martin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- 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: Virgil
- 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
- Prev by Date: Re: Continuous Random Function
- Next by Date: Re: question about Convergence of series
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|