On Jun 12, 12:13 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 12 Jun., 17:42, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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."
> > 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. > > Sorry, that is impossible.
Note that you have agreed
the binary tree contains a path p that can be distinguished from every element of P.
this directly contradicts your claim that
no possibility exists to construct or to distinguish by one or many or infinitely many nodes of the tree another path.
> Every node of path p and every set of nodes > of path p is covered by one or more paths of P.
Indeed, one *or more* paths of P. The set of nodes in path p is not covered by one path in P.
