Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

In article <1172220975.123624.192810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 22 Feb., 19:30, "MoeBlee" <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 22, 5:08 am, mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


And if there is a model of ZFC without this identity function, then
this raises the question, whether this identity function is in other
models. Every set theorist believes that the identity mapping of R
exists in current mathematics - perhaps without reason?

In any set theory in which functions can be defined at all, identity
functions are trivially defineable.


I for my part see that every path existing in the tree cannot exist
without an edge where it splits off from the rest of the tree,
whenever it splits off.

In a finite tree, every path splits off from the rest of the paths only
in its terminal edge.

In an infinite tree, an infinite path can not ever have a terminal
edge, so can never split off from all other paths.

Hence there cannot be more paths than edges

In finite trees, agreed, as there must be a terminal edge for each path.

But in infinite trees, WM presumes conditions contrary to fact, and is,
as usual, WRONG!!!,
.

Loading