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 3:56 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 2:09 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:

>> > Look, every finite definition of the tails can be used. In its
>> > simplest form use the tree or list of all terminating rational
>> > numbers. Then Cantor's diagonal argument fails at every level with
>> > finite index. And further levels are not subject to diagonalization.

>> Whatever this means,

> It means the same as the list of all terminating rationals. The
> diagonal argument cannot produce an antidiagonal that differs from all
> entries of the list.

You split the thread again. Do you do this when feeling cornered? Will
it have any effect if I ask you to stop doing it?


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.