Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:25:22 -0700
In article <1169718468.573403.117170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The structure of my trees is given. Therefore even the edges are not
necessary, but a guide for the eye.
Given the set of nodes {George, William, Ralph}, which is the root node?
Which is the left child of the root node?
Unless the set of edges is inherent in the NAMING of your nodes, and
thus is invisibly included in you set of nodes, your claim is nonsense.
Hence, the union of trees is the
union of ordered sets of nodes.
What is it that provides that "order", actually a partial order for most
trees, if it is not the set of edges?
If you accept this, then we may
continue. If you do not accept this, then leave it as it is.
Why should we accept what is patently false?
The "order", which WM sneaks in, does not exists in vacuo, but must be
provided, usually as a set of edges, but equivalently as a set of paths,
but it must be provided.
It is not the aim of any axiomatic theory to rely on what you see.
Maybe someone can explain the rules of the game to you.
I am not interested in a game which is as stupid as you report it.
It is a better game than the silly one you are playing, proselytizing
for your silly religion.
I am interested whether there are irrational numbers.
In mathematical "reality", they are as actual as triangles or natural
numbers. They are all mere ideas without any physical reality.
If T(oo) as defined by me is T as defined by me, concerning the set of
nodes and edges, then they are identical with respect to paths too.
WM's T(oo) and T have no more existence than do such irrational numbers
as sqrt(2).
If WM accepts the existence of his own "T(oo)", he can have no reason to
object to a similar existence for sqrt(2)
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: A card game probability
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|