Date: Apr 4, 2013 5:19 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 4/4/2013 3:48 PM, WM wrote:
> On 4 Apr., 21:01, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 8:22 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On 4 Apr., 19:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 4, 6:43 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 4 Apr., 18:21, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Apr 4, 5:19 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On 4 Apr., 16:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> There is no need to say what numbers belong to mathematics - in
>>>>>>> mathematics. There is no need to say what paths belong to the Binary
>>>>>>> Tree

>>
>>>>>> However, you keep talking about two types of paths,
>>
>>>>> Not at all. I talk about sets of nodes that are in the Binary Tree.
>>
>>>> Indeed, and some of these subsets of nodes are paths and
>>>> some are not.

>>
>>> In the Binary Tree there is no stop at any path.
>>
>>>> You talk about subsets of nodes with a last node
>>>> and subsets of nodes without a last node. However,
>>>> you refuse outright to indicate what makes a subset of nodes
>>>> a path (certainly not all subsets of nodes are paths).

>>
>>> All nodes that belong to a finite path, belong to an infinite path
>>> too.

>>
>> Since you refuse to say what makes a subset of nodes a path
>> you cannot claim that a path without a last node exists.-

>
> The construction principle of the Binary Tree (two child nodes to
> every parent node) is obvious. If someone believes that there is a
> difference between the Binary Tree that contains all infinite paths
> and the Binary Tree that does not contain an infinite path, but
> contains all finite paths, he has to define the latter. Good luck!


But, since you confuse the two with such regularity
in your statements that speak of finite paths in a
tree with no finite paths, it is to yourself that that
charitable remark is being given.