Date: Apr 5, 2013 6:00 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 224 In article

<929d4061-6f66-4851-aaf9-3cdf0346c437@t5g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 5 Apr., 21:10, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Apr 5, 10:43 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.-

> >

> > > I do not claim it. The infinite path, claimed or not, is simply

> > > existing as the union of all its FISONs.

> >

> > Certainly the subset of nodes given by the union of a set

> > of FISONs exists,

>

> Of course it exists, namely in the tree according to the rules for

> paths. Therefore I do not have to assert its existence.

Before I will take WMs word on the any such claim, I require proof.

>

> > but since you won't say what makes a subset

> > of nodes a path you cannot claim that this subset of nodes

> > is a path.

>

> Ridiculous! A node belongs to a path, if its predecessor belongs to a

> path. The only exception is the root node. Need I define what a

> predecessor is?

Yes! As that is a nonstandard term for tree structures. If you meant the

unique parent node, which each non-root node has, you should have said

so.

--