The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology � 233
Replies: 37   Last Post: May 12, 2014 10:24 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 233
Posted: Mar 30, 2013 4:17 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 3/30/2013 8:38 AM, WM wrote:
> On 29 Mrz., 19:34, Virgil <> wrote:

>>> So we have established the fact that an irrational number has no node
>>> of its own.

>> No number in any infinite binary tree has any node "of its own", as
>> every node has two child nodes belonging to necessarily different
>> numbers.

> That is correct, but only establishes the fact that no actually
> infinite path can be distinguished from all rational paths as should
> be possible in a Cantor-list - but is not.

WM failed the science lesson again today.

The Cantor argument is an argument scheme.

It presupposes a standard, classical use of
of the quantifier "all".

WM has never defined his non-standard uses
for the word "all". It has no agreed upon
usage. It is meaningless by WM's own standards
of meaning through pragmatic agreements between
language users.

By definition, all paths in the complete infinite
binary tree are infinite whether or not they
become eventually constant.

Any purported countable listing of all the paths
of that tree will result in a successful
defeat of the claim by a Cantor argument.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.