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 � 300
Replies: 14   Last Post: Jul 23, 2013 1:31 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 � 300
Posted: Jul 20, 2013 3:39 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:

> On Saturday, 20 July 2013 00:30:19 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:

> >> If you define the Binary Tree that contains only all finite initial
> >> segments of its infinite paths

> > Unless those infinite paths all actually existed, it would be nonsense to
> > speak of finite initial segments of them.

> Even if they don't exist, matheologians know what I mean with their FIS.
> Since I speak to matheologians, this is fine.

If WM is speaking only to matheologians, i.e., occupants of WM's wild
weird world of WMytheology, It is no wonder that he does not make any
sense to those of us not so incarcerated.
> So answer: How can we distinguish this Binary Tree that contains only all FIS
> of the paths of his big brother from his big brother?

Outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, no such incomplete
tree can exist. Any tree containing all FIS of the paths of a proper
COMPLETE INFINITE BINARY TREE, will contains infinite paths as well as
all those FISs of infinite paths.

Just as for sets of naturals, any set of naturals containing all FISONs
must be |N, the set of all naturals.

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.