In article <1c63b88c-7090-4040-92e5-c54d59f951bd@v12g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 18 Jul., 02:52, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <1c4dd924-a0c2-4ac0-a773-c7f140c9b...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 17 Jul., 21:31, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Cantor's list as a function, L, from N to {0,1}^N, > > with each value L_k, k in N, being a function from N to {0,1} > > For each k in N, and each n in N each L_k(n) is a member of {0,1} > > > > Define D: N -> {0,1): k|-> 1 - L_k(k). Or D(k) = 1 - L_k(k) > > > > Then there is no n in N such that D = L_n. > > The Binary Tree is a set of functions P_a, from N to {0,1}^N, > with each value P_a_k, a in second number class, k in N, being a > function from N to {0,1} > For each k in N, and each a in second number class, each P_a_k is a > member of {0,1}
What is you alleged "second number class". No such thing is needed to construct a complete infinite binary tree.
A binary tree can just as well be the set N of positive naturals with, for each n in N, 2^n being its left child and 2^n+1 being its right child. --
