On Jun 12, 2:25 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 12 Jun., 18:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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."
<snip attempt to change P after p has been chosen>
Note that you have agreed
the binary tree contains a path p that can be distinguished from every element of P.
