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: 20   Last Post: Apr 4, 2013 10:16 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 233
Posted: Apr 1, 2013 7:54 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
WM <> wrote:

> On 1 Apr., 17:05, William Hughes <> wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 8:55 am, WM <> wrote:
> >

> > > Matheology § 233
> >
> > > The set of all termination decimals is a subset of Q. If the set of
> > > all terminating decimals of the unit interval is arranged as set of
> > > all terminating paths of the decimal tree,

> >
> > It is, of course, impossible to write this out
> > (there number of terminating decimals is infinite).
> >

> But it is possible to construct the Binary Tree according to this
> method.

I am not at all sure that it is even possible to build any binary tree
this way but it is clearly impossible to built a COMPLETE INFINITE
BINARY TREE, this way.

For one thing, in a CIBT, every path is by definition maximal in the
sense that no additional node can be added to a path without making the
result not a path, and is also minimal in the sense that no node can be
removed from it without making the result not a path.

In WM's "trees", every FISON (Finite Initial Sequncee Of Nodes) appears
to be a path, which is quite differnt notion of path.

> It is impossible to write them out. Yes. But they are constructed like
> the finita paths. It is impossible to prohibit infinite paths (of
> rationals and of irrationals) to be constructed when the complete set
> of nodes of the Binary Tree is constructed by means of all finite
> paths. Therefore it is impossible to distinguish infinite paths by
> nodes other than be naming infinite sets of nodes. Alas there are only
> countably many names available.

Thus not all CIBT-paths are nameable, just like not all real numbers are

Nothing in the vast extent of mathematics outide Wolkenmuekenheim
requires that all things be nameable.

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.