Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 233
Posted: Mar 31, 2013 12:02 PM

On 3/31/2013 10:47 AM, WM wrote:
> On 31 Mrz., 17:30, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> In article
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>>> On 31 Mrz., 02:56, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>>> In article

>>
>>>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>>>> On 30 Mrz., 22:11, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Thus there is always at least one bit of any listed entry
>>>>>>>> disagreeing
>>>>>>>> with the antidiagonanl, just as the Cantor proof requires.

>>
>>>>>>> In a list containing every rational: Is there always, i.e., up to
>>>>>>> every digit, an infinite set of paths identical with the anti-
>>>>>>> diagonal? Yes or no?

>>
>>>>>> The set of paths in any Complete Infinite Binary Tree which agree with
>>>>>> any particular path up to its nth node is equinumerous with the set of
>>>>>> all paths in the entire tree i.e., is uncountably infinite.

>>
>>>>> This was the question: In a list containing every rational: Is there
>>>>> always, i.e., up to every digit, an infinite set of paths identical
>>>>> with the anti-diagonal? Yes or no?

>>
>>>> Lists and trees are different. And anti-diagonals derive from lists, not
>>>> trees.
>>>> The entries in list are well ordered.
>>>> The entries in a Complete Infinite Binary Tree are densely ordered.

>>
>>> The entries in form of nodes are well ordered. Anything else is not

>>
>>>> Those order types are incompatible.
>>
>>> This was the question: In a list containing every rational: Is there
>>> always, i.e., up to every digit, an infinite set of paths (rational
>>> numbers) identical with the anti-diagonal? Yes or no?

>>
>> This is an equally valid question: What's the difference between a duck?

>
> From the standpoint of matheology, perhaps. Did you hitherto respond
> in an unreasonable way because you misunderstood the question?
>

No. He responded in a unreasonable way because you
repeated a senseless question despite having its
senselessness explained to you.

Date Subject Author
3/27/13 Virgil
3/28/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/28/13 fom
3/28/13 fom
3/28/13 fom
3/28/13 rt servo
3/28/13 fom
3/28/13 fom
3/28/13 Virgil
3/28/13 fom
3/30/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/30/13 fom
3/30/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
3/30/13 Virgil
3/30/13 Virgil
3/30/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/30/13 Virgil
3/30/13 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
3/31/13 Virgil
3/30/13 fom
5/12/14 ross.finlayson@gmail.com
3/31/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/31/13 fom
3/31/13 Virgil
3/31/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
3/31/13 fom
3/31/13 Virgil
4/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/1/13 fom
4/1/13 Virgil
4/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/1/13 Virgil
4/2/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
4/2/13 Virgil
3/27/13 fom