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: Wm mis-explains what he means by a Binary Tree
Replies: 3   Last Post: Feb 5, 2014 3:46 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Ben Bacarisse

Posts: 1,972
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: Wm mis-explains what he means by a Binary Tree
Posted: Feb 5, 2014 2:20 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

WM <> writes:

> Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 17:41:13 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> If they gave the
>> "obvious" construction based on the bijection f: N -> P that the path
>> p(n) "goes the other way" to the path f(n)(n) does would you mark them
>> down?

> They would know that also the other way is already realized, for every
> n, in a rationals-complete list. And they would know that this
> rationals-complete liste is realized by the Binary Tree. You cannot
> cope with them.

You don't teach them how to tell if two infinite sequences are the same
or not? After a course from you, they could no longer show that the
sequence defined above is not equal to any sequence in the image of f?
You are not doing them any favours.

Anyway, it seems that your "of course" was premature. You've seen that
it leads to a result you don't want and you are now back-tracking. If
they argued as I suggested you'd tell them they are wrong. Shame on you.


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.