Re: Cantor and the binary tree

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:06:45 -0400, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
<aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>imaginatorium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
>> <snip> ... Here it is again, the standard 'argument':
>
>That was an obnoxious snip. You deliberately snipped the context, where Martin
>said:
>
>> 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.
>>
>This is a statement specifically about FINITE binary trees, and it's incorrect.
>Try to be honest from now on, and stop snipping context to make others look
>stupid.

Care to give me an example of a finite binary tree where it isn't
true.

>> Say the magic Induction Mantra "Preserved through infinity", and
>> overcome the nonexistence of something by claiming it is
>> "unidentifiable".
>>
>> Hmm. Seen it all before, somewhere.
>Probably somewhere else where it didn't exist. You want to get that checked
>out. I hear there's a cure for Cantorian flu......

Something about hiding ones head in the sand.

Martin

.

Relevant Pages
Loading