Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:42:20 -0600
In article <1183020275.320012.107920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 28 Jun., 08:02, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1183009493.535511.143...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
That means
P/K = lim_{x --> oo} (2^]x[) / (2^[x+1] - 1) > 2
or set theory is selfcontradictory.
It only means that, as usual, WM has the wrong end of the stick.
WM is claiming that a rule that only applies to some paths because they
have leaf nodes must apply to paths not having leaf nodes also.
First: I consider every path, including such which do not end, by ]x[.
Second: All paths, except some divine ones, consist of nodes.
Third: My consideration does not end, is not estricted to leaves, but
concerns the limit x --> oo.
Regards, WM
Does WM deny that for every finite binary tree in which all paths are of
equal length that there is a different path for every subset of the set
of all non-terminal levels defined by having for every set of levels a
path branching left from those levels and right from every other level?
I.e., Does WM deny that for such finite trees there is a bijection
between the power set of the set of non-terminal levels and the set of
paths?
And why does WM argue that such a correspondence should suddenly fail
when the tree becomes infinite, when it clearly does not.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: WM
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: Virgil
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: WM
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: Virgil
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: WM
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- Prev by Date: Re: begining
- Next by Date: group homomorphism
- Previous by thread: Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- Next by thread: Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|