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 ]

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Wm mis-explains what he means by a Binary Tree
Posted: Feb 5, 2014 3:46 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>,
WM <> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 20:20:51 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
> > 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.

But no COMPLETE INFINITE BINARY TREE is "realized" by a "rational
complete " list.

But is realized as follows:
A Complete Infinite Binary Tree can be formed from the actually infinite
set |N as its set of nodes, with the left and right child of node n
being node 2*n+0 and 2*n+1, respectively. Nothing further is needed to
make |N with that given parent-child relationship on its members into a
Complete Infinite Binary Tree.

Note that the tree exists without needing any definition of path at all.

One can then define what it means to be a path in that tree:
Definition of a path in the tree defined above: a subset of |N which
contains 1 and which for each n in it also contains one but not both of
2*n+0 and 2*n+1 is a path.

Note that this does not define individual paths, but only defines how to
tell whether a subset of |N is a path or not.

But it allows us to match any particular path to a unique infinite
sequence of 0's and 1's, corresponding to the sequence of 2n+0 and 2n+1
child nodes in that path.

Note that under the above definition of pathhood only an ACTUALLY
INFINITE sequence of 0's or 1's corresponds to a path. No finite such
sequence can represent a path.

All of which is perfectly straightforward and proper in all standard
versions of mathematics, and is only forbidden by WM in

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.