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 2, 2013 6:03 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
WM <> wrote:

> On 2 Apr., 01:54, Virgil <> wrote:

> >
> > 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.

> Given the foundations of matheology, it is possible to construct every
> node / every finite path of a Binary Tree that is complete with
> respect to its nodes.

> >
> > 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.

> Call it as you like. I call it finite path as an abbreviation of FIS
> of an infinite path.

> >
> > > It is impossible to write them out. Yes. But they are constructed like
> > > the finite 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
> > nameable.

> They are not even distinguishable by nodes. They are purest belief.

What in mathematics is not a matter of belief? Even small natural
numbers have no physical existence but are merely creations of the mind.

And if other minds than WM's can create what WM does not and cannot
either comprehend or imagine, that is only WM's loss.

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.