Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Martin Shobe <mshobe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:29:01 GMT
On 17 Jul 2005 10:56:20 -0700, mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> So you would propose that there is something contradictory about the
>> half-open interval [0,1/9) in the rationals, because it doesn't contain
>> 1/9?
>
>No, I would propose that the limit 1/9 is not on the antidagonal if it
>is not in the list, because an equilateral triangle remains so also in
>the infinite limit.
I would have thought that the limit would be a plane, and not an
equilateral triangle at all.
Martin
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: *** T. Winter
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Martin Shobe
- 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: cbrown
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: uniform convergence question
- Next by Date: Re: probability theory applied to theology
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):