Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 1, 2016 at 0:52 comment added Will Sawin @BjørnKjos-Hanssen In a 2-branchy tree, every node in the tree has two intermediate successors. In the 2-branchy tree, it's every node after a certain node. There are obvious counterexamples to the 2-branchy version of the original problem, but it's fine in this very symmetric version. However, I don't see how to reconstruct the reduction argument or how to apply an analogue of my method to the original problem.
Mar 31, 2016 at 23:36 comment added Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen What's the difference between 2-branchy and 2-bushy then?
Mar 20, 2016 at 20:20 history edited Will Sawin CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 422 characters in body
Mar 11, 2015 at 20:40 comment added Andreas Blass $[T]$ is the set of infinite paths through the tree $T$, and the OP wants $f$ to be one-to-one or constant on such a set $[T]$.
Mar 11, 2015 at 20:35 history undeleted Will Sawin
Mar 11, 2015 at 20:35 history edited Will Sawin CC BY-SA 3.0
added 419 characters in body
Mar 11, 2015 at 19:16 history edited Will Sawin CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1755 characters in body
Mar 11, 2015 at 15:05 history deleted Will Sawin via Vote
Mar 11, 2015 at 14:59 comment added Will Sawin @AndreasBlass what's the definition of one-one for trees? I thought it was a statement about the vertices, hence a statement about the immediate successors of $b$. Is it a statement about infinite paths?
Mar 11, 2015 at 13:52 comment added Andreas Blass I don't see why "restricted to any tree that branches on an even row, $f$ cannot be one-one." The reason is that, if $p$ and $q$ are the two immediate successors of a branch point $b$, the part of the subtree beyond $p$ may be entirely different from the part beyond $q$.
Mar 11, 2015 at 13:01 history answered Will Sawin CC BY-SA 3.0