On Jun 12, 10:36 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 12 Jun., 12:23, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:14 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 11 Jun., 23:06, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:38 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > On 11 Jun., 21:33, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> 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." > > > > > Before P is used to construct the binary tree, > > > > the binary tree contains a path > > > > p that can be distinguished from > > > > every element of P. > > > > Yes > > > Using P to construct the binary tree does > > not change any of the elements of P > > or the path p. > > > Please acknowledge > > > After P is used to construct the binary tree, > > the binary tree contains a path > > p that can be distinguished from > > every element of P. > > > After construction, the tree contains P (and every other path of the > unit interval you wish) in same same form
So after construction the tree contains every element of P and the path p. Since they have not changed form it is still possible to distinguish p from every element of P
So it is possible to contruct another path, p, which can be distinguished from every element of P. This directly contradicts your claim
"no possibility exists to construct or to distinguish by one or many or infinitely many nodes of the tree another path."
