On Jun 14, 2:35 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 14 Jun., 16:49, 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."
> There are two statements: > 1) Path p can be distinguished from every path of P. > 2) Path p cannot be distinguished from every path of P. > > The first is assumed to be correct before P was used to construct the > tree.
Nope. No assumption. You agreed that statement 1 is correct before P was used to construct the tree.
You agreed that constucting the tree does not change path p or any element of P
You are now trying to claim statement 2 is correct after P is used to construct the tree.
(Note P is used to construct the nodes of the tree, the nodes of the tree are used to construct the paths of the tree. The set of paths in P and the set of paths in the tree are not the same. The fact that p cannot be distinguished from all paths in the tree does not mean that p cannot be distinguished from all paths in P)
> The second statement can be proved to be correct, because in fact you > are not able to distinguish p from P (by means of digits).
P contains every digit in p, so you are not able to distinguish p from P by digits. P does not contain every subset of digits in p, so you are able to distinguish p from P by subsets of digits.
