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 >> <17e6599f5537449ab4aabb1764a3c...@g8g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: >>> On 31 Mrz., 02:56, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >>>> In article >>>> <2bc13fff5cbb43dda06a218c68c99...@m9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, >> >>>> WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.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 antidiagonal? Yes or no? >> >>>> Lists and trees are different. And antidiagonals 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 >>> added to the list. >> >>>> 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 antidiagonal? 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.

