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 26, 2012 10:49 AM

On 26 Dez., 13:24, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 26/12/2012 7:29 AM, Zuhair wrote:
>
>
>

> >> Depends on the level of distinguishability at issue.
>
> >> For any finite set of such strings, finite initial segments suffice to
> >> distinguish all of them from each oterhbut for at least some infinite
> >> set, no finite set of finite initial segments suffices.

>
> > Yes but a countable set of them suffices! no?
>
> Of course. And how many such countable sets are there? Cantor showed
> that there are uncountably many.

Cantor showed that by digits or nodes.
And I showed that they cannot be distinguished by nodes.
>
> There are at least two counter-intuitive notions when dealing with
> infinities: There is an infinite set, each of whose elements are finite
> (viz. the sequence of initial segments {{1}, {1,2}, {1,2,3}, ...}; and
> the set of all countable subsets of a countable set is uncountable. The
> only thing this shows is that intuition is sometimes insufficient to
> grasp complex things.

No, it shows that there is no nonsense great enough for matheologians
not to believe in (and to call their thinking "complex" and a simple
and clear contradiction "intuition"). No set of finite subsets of |N
exists, that was uncountable. Only a subset containing uncountably
many infinite subsets is uncountable. However, it is impossible to
define infinite subsets by themselves. You need always a finite
definition. The set of all finite definitions however is countable. No
intuition requred.

Cantor's and Hessenberg's "proofs" simply show that infinity is never
finished and a complete infinite set is not part of sober thinking.

You could be excused perhaps if the CIBT was the only contradiction of
your belief. But there is a lot more, for instance this one:
http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=12607

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