Re: Approaching the infinite binary tree

On 30 Sep, 04:16, Mariano Suárez-Alvarez
<mariano.suarezalva...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:47 pm, "G. A. Edgar" <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





In article
<36da9a22-353b-4a59-b222-36c755be8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David R Tribble <da...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mariano Suarez-Alvarez
You seem to mean by this that you have a last level, the one
indexed by w.

LudovicoVan wrote:
I can drop the "informally": A tree with w levels! What is the problem
with that?

Nothing at all.

However, you have a huge problem if you are saying there
is a level that has index w.

It may make perfectly good sense, depending on your definition of
"tree".
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(set_theory)

Just one of the many problems this creates for you:
what is the index of the level immediately before level w?

Depending on your definition of "tree", it can happen that "level
immediately before" need not be defined.

Everything depends on the definitions.

Since we were not given any definition of anything

And this is -again- false.

Thanks as usual for shitting all over.

-LV
.

Quantcast