On Mar 31, 1:44 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 31 Mrz., 03:09, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > <4f5abe9e-4a74-4ada-ab2c-3f6cab383...@ia3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 30 Mrz., 19:15, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <ab85409a-eabf-4b68-b505-d194ed33a...@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 30 Mrz., 10:17, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 24 Mrz., 18:09, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > The only difference is that in the second case you consider > > > > > > > > some subsets of the nodes to be paths, that are not considered > > > > > > > > to be paths in the first case. > > > > > > > > Well, that is a correct description. It implies that these additional > > > > > > > subsets cannot be distinguished by nodes from the finite subsets > > > > > > > Piffle. It is trivial to distinguish a subset that has a node > > > > > > at a last level from a subset that does not have a node > > > > > > at a last level. > > > > > > No, that is impossible if an infinite path consists of infinitely many > > > > > finite subsets. > > > > > All infinities consist of infinitely many finite parts. > > > > But the infinite set of all naturals is distinguishable be from the > > > > infinite set of all FISONs, > > > > And so is the path of 1/pi distinguishable from all its finite initial > > > segments which are in the tree. But as you said, 1/pi is not distinct > > > from them. > > > WM conflates the set of all FISONs with the union of that set, > > On the contrary. I claim that the tree contains all FISONs but not the > limits. > > > |N, so, > > as he does far too often, fails to distinguish between the subsets of a > > set and the members of a set. > > > Until he has learned ro distinguish between the members of a set and > > the subset of a set reliably, he should avoid anything to do with sets. > > > It comes into the construction automatically. The limit is > > > > in any case a member of the sequence. That is unmathematical. > > And that is what you claim! > > > > > > > > It is impossible to distinguish the actually infinite path of 1/pi > > > > > from a path that only is built of all finite initial segments of the > > > > > path of 1/pi. > > > > > It may be so in Wolkenmuekenheim, but a set of only finite > > > > approximations to an irrational number can elsewhere be distinguished > > > > from the number itself. > > > > Then explain why this is not possible in the Binary Tree. You said > > > that the irrationals come into the tree automatically, impossible to > > > distinguish by nodes. > > > I never said that they were impossible to distinguish by node, because > > they are. > > You said that the tree that contains all nodes of all terminating > paths, abracadabra, also contains the limit. So it is impossible to > distinguish the limt from all terminating paths. Abracadabra is not a > part of mathematics. > > > > > In a Complete Infinite Binary Tree, every binary rational path has only > > finitely many left-child nodes or only finitely many right-child nodes, > > whereas every other path has infinitely many of each. > > That is nonsense. 0.0101010101... has infinitely many of both sorts. > > Regards, WM
Well, you see Virgil has introduced a term in context the "binary rational path": in cooperative communication that is so defined there, because that every initial segment is the initial segment of a rational, and that the language of "rational paths" is unbounded, doesn't offer for him the conclusion of his arguments. So, he expects that to be understood as his definition in passing, or he can point to it later, as to differentiating his personal definition from the general definition, as so qualified.