Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
Posted:
Dec 27, 2012 3:49 PM
|
|
In article
<41e51766-079f-42ae-86b8-079ab64e7948@d4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 26 Dez., 21:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > As usual, you draw unwarranted conclusions from everything.
> >
> > As one identifies a path as a particular set of digits or nodes, how is
> > asking you to identify your paths in any way overlooking them?
>
> Since I have constructed or covered all paths that can be defined by
> nodes. There is no node that you could name that could define a path
> that is not in the CIBT that I constructed.
You claim to have done so, but have not yet shown us a single one of
your paths, and to validate your claim, you must show us a listing of
all of them so that we may see that they are countable.
But you dare not do that because any allegedly complete listing of your
allegedly complete set of paths will show its own incompleteness.
>
> > You have also not proved that your set of paths is countable, which can
> > only be done by proving that they can be listed, and most easily done by
> > providing such a list.
>
> The paths that can be identified by nodes can be listed.
Until you actually list them, any such claim is unsupported by any
evidence, which is WM's usual method: Makeing all sorts of irrelevant
claims (which WM does not even then prove), to throw dust in everyone's
eyes.
> It is the set
> of all finite paths extending from the root node to a given node.
In every Complete Infinite Binary Tree, every finite path ends at the
root node of of another Complete Infinite Binary Tree. So for every
finite path, there are uncountably many extensions of it in every
Complete Infinite Binary Tree.
You
> can append them by whatever tail you want, because all these tails are
> also covered by my construction.
Since there are of necessity uncountably many infinite tails to every
finite head, one still has uncountability, at least outside
Wolkenmuekenheim.
Not that WM again refuses to provide any evidence of the alleged but
false 'completeness' of his set of paths, or even of its conforming to
any definition of countability.
WMytheology at its worst!
--
|
|
