On 12 Jun., 21:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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>
You should give up. There is no attempt to change P. There is a proof that you cannot distinguish p from the set of paths P that has been used to construct the tree. > > Note that you have agreed > > the binary tree contains a path > p that can be distinguished from > every element of P. > If I have agreed, then I was in error. The binary tree contains no path that can be distinguished from the countable set P that has been used to construct the tree. Or let me put is this way: Every path that is present in the tree belongs to a countable set that could have been unsed to construct the tree.
