|
|
Re: Matheology § 190
Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 7:33 PM
|
|
On Jan 12, 3:26 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4bffb7f3-9bfa-4dae-9108-da5e24389...@f4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 12 Jan., 22:00, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <c0615860-6190-4c10-9185-78ed2f6a2...@x10g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > Matheology 190
>
> > > > The Binary Tree can be constructed by aleph_0 finite paths.
>
> > > > 0
> > > > 1, 2
> > > > 3, 4, 5, 6
> > > > 7, ...
>
> > > Finite trees can be built having finitely many finite paths.
> > > A Complete Infinite Binary Tree cannot be built with only finite paths,
> > > as none of its paths can be finite.
>
> > Then the complete infinite set |N cannot be built with only finite
> > initial segments {1, 2, 3, ..., n} and not with ony finite numbers 1,
> > 2, 3, ...? Like Zuhair you are claiming infinite naturals!
>
> A finite initial segment of |N is not a path in the unary tree |N.
>
> And neither |N as a unary tree nor any Complete Infinite Binary Tree
> has any finite paths.
>
> "A Complete Infinite Binary Tree cannot be built with only
> finite paths, as none of its paths can be finite."
>
> Means the same as
>
> "A Complete Infinite Binary Tree cannot be built HAVING only
> finite paths, as none of its paths can be finite."
>
> WM has this CRAZY notion that a path in a COMPLETE INFINITE BINARY TREE
> can refer to certain finite sets of nodes.
>
> And no one is claiming any infinite naturals, only infinitely many
> finite naturals.
> --
No, some have infinite naturals.
For example, Boucher's system F or Paris and Kirby's nonstandard
countable naturals, various systems with a point at infinity, from
number theory, others besides your lash-ee have infinite naturals.
No it is not so far-fetched that the naturals are compact, and in
fact, it neatens a variety of facets of their structure.
No, I quite so imagine you two could spew on at each other quite
indefinitely: without much novelty, though it's remarkable that your
mutual esteem and contribution to the discussion would tend to zero.
So, entertain us, that's a request for change. Because, we can quite
well examine your mental fumblings and exhultations in the obvious to
each other, without needing direction in as to the simple segregation
of a man. Plainly don't much care to see you adore him on a pedestal,
nor piss on him down the well. Either extreme is rather repugnant to
the temperant.
No, there's a general interest in sublime facts of the mathematics,
not opinion. And, that deliberation includes notions of infinite
naturals.
Get thee to a scullery, crow.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
|
|
