|
|
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Feb 1, 2013 10:01 AM
|
|
On 1 Feb., 14:43, harry_potte...@walla.co.il wrote:
>
> First of all, I don't and I can't talk for those eminent authorities, though I don't think there are many that "defend the existence of an omega-th level in any binary tree" anymore than "many" of them would be ready to defend "the existence of the first (in the usual natural order) positive real number", or the existence of "the infinite-th negative natural number".
> These filological, semi-logical, semantic nonsenses fit yours, and they are exterior, and seriously unimportant, to mathematics.
My question:
How can we distinguish between that infinite binary tree that contains
only all finite initial segments of the infinite paths and the
complete infinite binary tree that in addition also contains all
infinite paths?
=========================================
One tree is <? 2 ; the other is ?? 2 , which has ? 2 as its top
level, sitting above the levels of <? 2 . Similarly, ?2 2 , the
complete binary tree of height 3 , differs from <2 2 , the complete
binary tree of height 2 , by having 2 2 as its top level, sitting
above both levels of <2 2 . ? Brian M. Scott 7 hours ago
Here you find Brian M. Scott, the leading man of reputation:
http://math.stackexchange.com/users?tab=reputation&filter=quarter
He was not the only one uttering this absurd idea among those
matheologians who rated my question with -6 before deleting it. And
none of over 100 visitors of that site corrected his nonses.
Regards, WM
|
|
