In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 22 Jan., 21:18, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > > > That is potential infinity. That proof is not necessary, because the > > > set is obviously potentially infinite. No, you shoudl give a proof, > > > that there is a larger k than all finite k. > > > > Er, no. When I say that the union is infinite, I do not mean that it > > contains an infinite number. > > But you mean that the tree contains infinite paths. And just that is > impossible without ... > > In order to shorten this discussion please have a look at > http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/284328/how-to-distinguish-between-the- > complete-and-the-incomplete-infinite-binary-tree
That URL said: This question was removed from Mathematics - Stack Exchange for reasons of moderation. Please refer to the FAQ for possible explanations why a question might be removed And the FAQ said Why are some questions or answers removed? Questions that are extremely off topic, or of very low quality, may be removed at the discretion of the community and moderators. > > There it has meanwhile turned out ... But see it with your own eyes > what you would not believe if I told you.
We believe that the moderators of http://math.stackexchange.com found the posting "of very low quality". > > The index omega is in reach, it seems.