Virgil
Posts:
9,012
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Feb 1, 2013 5:07 PM


In article <9df04953824e4413b5bbf535bf3f3151@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 1 Feb., 16:36, harry_potte...@walla.co.il wrote: > > > 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? > > > As I already told you, my dearest WM, I won't try to educate you in basic > > mathematics anymore. > > Of course not. But you could answer my simple question for the benefit > of the other readers who obviously are completely at loss. If you > really are so good as you say, there should be no real effort > necessary from your side!?
How about this: It is impossible to exclude any infinite path (as a set of nodes) from a tree without also excluding some finite node in that infinite path and thus also excluding the finite initial segment ending at than node.
But WM's alleged tree contain all nodes but not all infinite paths.
Thus WM's "infinite binary tree that contains only all finite initial segments of the infinite paths but not all infinite paths" is pure illusion.
At least outside of WMytheology 

