Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

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 ]
Virgil

Posts: 9,012
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: WMYtheology Sucks
Posted: Jul 21, 2013 3:45 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <55dafae7-b85f-4437-9985-5fbbf4707be2@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Sunday, 21 July 2013 05:06:42 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <83fe7898-a53d-411f-863d-e8ae292cf5f1@googlegroups.com>,
> > mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > On Saturday, 20 July 2013 21:31:03
> > UTC+2, Virgil wrote:

>
> >>> Any countable set can be listed without inclusion of any non-members.
>
> > > at least if not
>
> > Since the definition of "countable" requires the ability to surject |N to
> > the the collection of whatever is alleged to be countable, there is no |not
> > if".

>
> The rationals are countable. If written in the Binary Tree just these aleph_0
> elements remain aleph_0 elements, don't they?


Of course, but their paths are not the only paths in any such a tree,
the presence of paths for all binary rationals requires the presence of
limit paths for all converging sequences of binaries as well.
And that produces a path for every member of the uncountable real unit
interval!


> Do the rational points of the
> unit interval have a cardinality aleph_0? You think so.


I know better. But when one also has all the irrational points of the
unit interval, as one does everywhere but in WMytheology, that real
interval is an uncountable set.

The paths in a Complete Infinite Binary Tree which correspond to binary
rationals are those countably many paths which contain only finitely
many branchings in one direction or the other, which leaves all those
uncountably many paths with infinitely many branchings in both
directions in that tree unaccounted for by WM.
>
> But the rationals written in the Binary Tree create a set of cardinality
> larger than aleph_0.


In order to have all rational paths in a Complete Infinite Binary Tree,
one must also have all irrational paths as well.

WW deludes himself in claiming that any converging sequence of binary
rational paths in [0,1] does NOT have a limit path in [0,1]
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.