Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
Posted:
Dec 30, 2012 9:09 PM
|
|
In article
<0d8fdfbc-711a-44fe-adb4-629c9f87f26d@ah9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 3:21 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fb7fa7ab-bc25-4cb9-9b7c-a073c2fe7...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@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.
> > --
>
>
> Until you find applications for transfinite cardinals, it's all
> "pretend": pure, abstract mathematics.
What's wrong with pure mathematics, and why do you claim it to be only
pretend?
There is nothing in your EF or other notions that is not even more
pretend than anything in my "pure" mathematics.
--
|
|
