Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 198
Replies: 40   Last Post: Jan 26, 2013 6:54 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 7,010
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 198
Posted: Jan 25, 2013 2:24 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<4895a69b-fbb9-4a39-9078-c69e0c5c9046@d12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 25 Jan., 08:41, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 8:32 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > > On 25 Jan., 01:27, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jan 24, 8:52 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > The following is copied from Mathematics StackExchange and
> > > > > MathOverflow. Small wonder that the sources have been deleted already.

> >
> > > > > How can we distinguish between that infinite Binary Tree that contains
> > > > > only all finite initial segments of the infinite paths and that
> > > > > complete infinite Binary Tree that in addition also contains all
> > > > > infinite paths?

> >
> > > > > Let k  denote the L_k th level of the Binary Tree.  The set of all
> > > > > nodes of the Binary Tree defined by the union of all finite initial
> > > > > segments (L_1, L_2, ..., L_k) of the sequence of levels U{0 ... oo}
> > > > > (L_1, L_2, ..., L_k) contains (as subsets) all finite initial segments
> > > > > of all infinite paths. Does it contain (as subsets) the infinite paths
> > > > > too?

> >
> > > > > How could both Binary Trees be distinguished by levels or by nodes?
> >
> > > > They cannot of course. Both have exactly the same levels and the same
> > > > nodes.

> >
> > > > They can of course be distinguished.
> >
> > > > In one case you do not include infinite subsets.
> > > > In the other you do.

> >
> > > My question aimed at the posiibility to distinguish the Binary Trees
> > > by a mathematical criterion, namely that one that is applied in the
> > > diagonal argument. Of course you have understood that.

> >
> > > That does not hinder you to believe in addition in matheological
> > > concepts that cannot be based on mathematical facts like nodes,
> > > levels, or digits.

> >
> > Nope.  The concept is based on nodes, and levels.
> >
> > We can use the same set of nodes to make two collections of
> > sets of nodes.  One collection contains all sets of nodes, X, with
> > the property that there is a node in X with a level greater or
> > equal to that of any other node in X.
> > The other collection contains all sets of nodes, Y, with the property
> > that there is no node in Y with a level greater or equal to that of
> > any other node Y.-

>
> And both sets of nodes are completely exhausted by the same paths with
> the only difference that one kind is called X and is finite and the
> other kind is called Y and is infinite. And, of course, there is a
> bijection between both kinds because they contain same nodes. And,
> yes, there is a last minor difference, there are far more Y's than
> X's. But nobody would notice.



As usual, WM's notion of a Complete Infinite Binary Tree exists nowhere
outside of Wolkenmuekenheim.

In fact, neither does his Complete Infinite UNARY Tree which requires
all infinitely many FISONS (finite initial segments of naturals) as sets
but disallows their union, |N, as a set.
--




Date Subject Author
1/24/13
Read Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/24/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/24/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/24/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/24/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/24/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Scott Berg
1/24/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/24/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
William Hughes
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
William Hughes
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
William Hughes
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
William Hughes
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
William Hughes
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/26/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
William Hughes
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
William Hughes
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
William Hughes
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology § 198
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil
1/25/13
Read Re: Matheology � 198
Virgil

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.