|
|
Re: Mathematics in brief
Posted:
Dec 9, 2012 4:40 PM
|
|
On 9 Dez., 22:35, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <2bb6f691-34d5-4b9c-898d-d4eb22f8c...@r6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 9 Dez., 00:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <77fc76f5-fa78-4e2a-8927-1f4743fef...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > On 8 Dez., 18:55, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > All the rest of your speech is restrictive without a clear
> > > > > justification other than personal favoritism for the finite and
> > > > > concrete descriptions.
>
> > > > Every node of the Binary Tree is positioned at a finite place.
> > > > Infinite paths cannot be defined by lists of nodes but only by finite
> > > > formulas describing the paths like "path of 1/3".
>
> > > While a single such path may require such a single definition, the set
> > > of all of them does not.
> > > The set of all of them is defined as soon as any unambiguous criterion
> > > for membership is defined, and that is trivially easy to do.
>
> > > How can it be so difficult to understand this simple fact?
> > > --
>
> > I am not interested in the set of real numbers, but in its elements
> > and in the question how many real numbers, each of which has its own
> > definition and therefore is in bijection with all others, do exist.
>
> Each real number is in bijection with all others?
In trichotomy, of course.
Regards, WM
|
|
