
Re: On the infinite binary Tree
Posted:
Dec 14, 2012 1:25 AM


On 14 Dez., 01:13, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> There is simply NO "natural" passage to a "limit" here. EVERYthing WM > is saying is being > said ABOUT THE FINITE case. The infinite case is simply DIFFERENT.
It is astonishing that this possibility is not considered in case of Cantor's list, isn't it?
In all applications of analysis the limit is defined solely by the finite terms.
> For one thing, all the finite paths END and all the infinite ones > DON'T.
Then take all paths that cover as many nodes as possible.
> All the finite paths TERMINATE AT ONE UNIQUE NODE and all the infinite > ones don't.
But they must be defined by more than the nodes, if there shall be more than conutably many. And we all know that an infinite sequence is never defined by its terms but only by a finite definition. Alas, there are only countably many finite definitions. > > THE REAL ISSUE here is WM's equivocation on what it means for a > collectionofpaths > "To Cover" (that's my verb, not his) a collectionofnodes.
You can also say to construct a collection of nodes, namely the complete Binary Tree, by countably many paths.
> WM has been in here with this shit for over a decade.
Two wrong assertions in one simple sentence. Small wonder that you don't understand that Cantor has already been refuted.
I construct the complete infinite Binary Tree by means of countably many paths. If there were more paths definable by nodes, then you should be able to say which one. If not, then you should be able to see that only finite definitions define paths like that of 1/3. Alas, there are only countaby many finite definitions. Is it really that hard to understand?
> His premise is so blatantly bullshit that it really should NOT be > taking you THIS long!
But you cannot explain the error in my claim? Here it is again:
I construct the complete infinite Binary Tree by means of countably many paths. If there were more paths definable by nodes, then you should be able to say which one. If not, then you should be able to see that only finite definitions define paths like that of 1/3. Alas, there are only countaby many finite definitions. Is it really that hard to understand?
Regards, WM

