Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
Replies: 69   Last Post: Jan 4, 2013 11:11 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de Posts: 18,076 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
Posted: Dec 24, 2012 3:47 AM

On 23 Dez., 21:20, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just a minor conundrum that I want to discuss about WM's
> argument about the complete Infinite binary tree (CIBT). It is really
> about Cantor's argument. But the discussion here will be at intuitive
> level rather than just formal level.
>
> then make some rough analogy with the infinite binary tree.
>
> Let's take the binary tree with two levels below the root node level
> which is the following:
>
>    0
>   /  \
>  0   1
> / \   | \
> 0 1 0  1
>
> Now with this three one can say that distinquish-ability is present at
> all levels below the root node level, so we have two distinguishable
> paths at level 1 that are 0-0 and 0-1. While at level 2 we have four
> distinguishable paths that are 0-0-0, 0-0-1, 0-1-0, 0-1-1. However the
> reason why we had increased distinguish-ability at level 2 is because
> we had differential labeling of nodes at that level!  Now if we remove
> that differential labeling we'll see that we can only distinguish two
> longer paths by the labeling of their nodes, like in the following
> tree:
>
>     0
>    /  \
>   0   1
>  / \   | \
> 0 0  0  0
>
> Now clearly the only distinguishability present in that tree is at
> level 1 because all nodes at level 2 are not distinguished by their
> labeling. So the result is that there is no increase in the number of
> distinguishable paths of the above tree when we move from level 1 to
> level 2. See:
>
> Paths at level 1 are: 0-0 , 0-1.  Only Two paths.
> Paths at level 2 are : 0-0-0, 0-1-0. Only Two paths.
>
> Similarly take the tree:
>
>     0
>    /  \
>   0   1
>  / \   | \
> 1 1  1  1
>
> Paths at level 1 are: 0-0 , 0-1.  Only Two paths.
> Paths at level 2 are : 0-0-1, 0-1-1. Only Two paths.
>
> So the increment in number of paths in the original binary tree of
> level 2 after the root node, is actually due to having distinct
> labeling of nodes at level 2. If we don't have distinct labeling at a
> further level the number of distinguished longer paths stops at the
> last level where distinguished labeling is present.
>
> This is obviously the case for FINITE binary trees.

Don't forget: Every distinction in every Cantor list and in every
Binary Tree occurs at a finite level. There is no difference, whether
the digits or nodes are continuing or not. Evereything in mathematics
happens at a finite level. Therefore blathering about infinite paths
is useless.

Regards, WM

Date Subject Author
12/23/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/24/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/24/12 Virgil
12/24/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/24/12 Virgil
12/25/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/25/12 Virgil
12/26/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/26/12 Virgil
12/26/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/26/12 Virgil
12/27/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/27/12 Virgil
12/28/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/28/12 Virgil
12/29/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/29/12 Virgil
12/30/12 fom
12/30/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/30/12 fom
12/30/12 Virgil
12/30/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/30/12 Virgil
12/30/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/30/12 Virgil
12/30/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/30/12 Virgil
1/4/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/30/12 forbisgaryg@gmail.com
12/30/12 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/30/12 Virgil
12/26/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/26/12 Virgil
12/26/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/26/12 gus gassmann
12/26/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/26/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/27/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/27/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/28/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/28/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/28/12 Virgil
12/29/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/29/12 Virgil
12/29/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/29/12 Virgil
12/28/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/29/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/29/12 Virgil
12/27/12 Virgil
12/26/12 fom
12/26/12 Virgil
12/26/12 fom
12/26/12 Virgil
12/26/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/26/12 Virgil
12/26/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/26/12 forbisgaryg@gmail.com
12/26/12 Virgil
12/26/12 fom
12/27/12 gus gassmann
12/27/12 Tanu R.
12/27/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
12/27/12 Tanu R.
12/27/12 Virgil
12/28/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
12/28/12 Virgil
12/27/12 fom
12/27/12 Virgil
12/24/12 Ki Song