N.B. This dead slide dates from the days when the three tree types were
regarded as separate tree rather than three manifestations of a single
predecessor tree. These points are settled now.

## Why Doesn't That Settle the Issue?

### -- If all odd integers are in the abstract predecessor tree, doesn't that prove the conjecture?

-- It would, if it had been the general or the binary predecessor tree.

-- We lost it when we mapped the binary tree into the abstract tree.

-- That mapping works only in the one direction, from binary to abstract.

-- Placing an arbitrary integer in the abstract tree does not place it in the binary tree
because we don't have a mapping from the abstract to the binary tree.

-- In terms of the predecessor graph, if it were disconnected such
that an additional graph existed along side the binary tree, the
elements of that additional graph might be a tree composed of l.d.a.s
and rooted in something other than 1. Such a disconnected graph would constitute a
large family of counter-examples.

-- I.e., of all the values *n* might take in some particular *dn*+*c*
formulas, some number of them might specify l.d.a.s in counter-example subgraphs.

next slide
return to slide index