On Jun 11, 2:51 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 11 Jun., 20:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 1:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > Your claim is that "no possibility exists to construct or to > > distinguish > > by one or many or infinitely many nodes of the tree another path. > > > > If you have a tree that is (the nodes of which are) completely covered > > > by a set of paths then you cannot show any node that will distinguish > > > a further path from that given set of paths. > > > You can, however, show a subset of nodes that will distinguish > > a further path from that given set of paths. > > But only before those paths have occupied the tree.
Nope. Let the given set of paths be P.
Please acknowledge
There is a subset of nodes that cannot be found in a single element of P.
A subset of nodes is distinguished from an element p of P if and only if it is not contained in p.
A subset of nodes is distinguished from every element of P if and only if it is not contained in a single element of P.
There is a subset of nodes which forms a path that is not contained in a single element of P. This subset of nodes is distinguished from every element of P.
The subset of nodes can be found in the tree, however it cannot be found in a single element of P.
