Virgil
Posts:
5,514
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
Posted:
Dec 30, 2012 6:21 PM
|
|
In article
<fb7fa7ab-bc25-4cb9-9b7c-a073c2fe78d1@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 1:15 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8a425f72-80f2-4aee-9bb9-01f1c6f12...@vb8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > requires that they be listable, but one can prove that they are not
> > > > listable by showing that no list of them can be complete.
> > > > And no matter how vociferously WM tries to argue otherwise, in standard
> > > > mathematics that can all be done.
> > > > --
> >
> > > Well, not when "standard" was "pre-Cantorian"
> >
> > I used only the present tense which eliminates pre-Cantorianism.
> > --
>
>
> Then you shouldn't discount the future
I don't, but neither do I pretend to predict it, the way you do.
And, as thing stand in the present, standard mathematics supports the
Cantor diagonal argument and that every Complete Infinite Binary Tree
which really is a Complete Infinite Binary Tree instead of one of WM's
corrupted versions of one, must have uncountably many paths.
--
|
|
