Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:52:48 -0700
On 7 Jul., 19:45, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not assume that I alone know the truth, but I am striving to find
as much as I can. And I know there is no binary tree (and also no
decimal or other tree) with uncountably many paths.
It ain't what you don't know that hurts you, its what you "know" that
ain't so.
The uncountability of your real numbers, for instance, or your
imagination of being able to think infinitely many numbers.
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: Virgil
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- References:
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: *** T. Winter
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: WM
- Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- From: *** T. Winter
- 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
- Prev by Date: Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
- Next by Date: Re: y^2=4x+3
- 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):