Re: Approaching the infinite binary tree
- From: "Salviati" <eckard.blumschein@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:04:25 +0200
"LudovicoVan" <julio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:85a88c3e-0e26-4b34-9c7c-5f5b7645ec71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am thinking along the following lines, and I'd greatly appreciate....
some feedback.
Given the set of the extended naturals: N* := N u {w}, where
'w' (omega) is the limit ordinal.
The number of points on a diagonal at step k is 2^k, and they delimit
(2^k)-1 equal intervals, each of (normalized) length equal to 1/
[(2^k)-1]. In the limit case we can -informally- say that we have 2^w
limit points delimiting (2^w)-1 equal intervals, each of length 1/
[(2^w)-1]. With the theory of IFS we can prove (I won't try) that a
distance function expressed in these geometrical terms provides a
*complete* metric space.
The last one I recall who dealt with the infinite binary tree was W.M.
Did you read his (second) booklet?
I doubt that one can clarify what is wrong with set theory if one takes
its terminology for granted.
Salviati:
... in ultima conclusione, gli attributi di eguale
maggiore e minore non aver luogo ne gl'infiniti,
ma solo nelle quantità terminate.
IR >|> IR+ =|= IR
.
- References:
- Approaching the infinite binary tree
- From: LudovicoVan
- Approaching the infinite binary tree
- Prev by Date: Re: Yet another disproof of the diagonal argument
- Next by Date: Re: e idempotent, e+1 unit
- Previous by thread: Re: Approaching the infinite binary tree
- Next by thread: geometric proofs of incommensurable lengths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
