On Jun 15, 2:38 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 15 Jun., 17:41, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 15, 10:38 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 15 Jun., 16:01, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 15, 9:23 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > On 15 Jun., 00:19, 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." >
You agree that if actually infinite paths exist your claim is false.
> > You are trying a proof by contradiction of > > " Actually infinite paths exist" > > > We have > > If actually infinite paths exist > > there is a path p that can be distinguished > > from every path of P. > > > We need > > > If actually infinite paths exist > > there is no path p that can be distinguished > > from every path of P. >
<snip>
> > > > Proof: You > > > cannot distinguish p from the tree, > > > Irrelevant. You do not distinguish p from the tree. > > You distinguish p from every element of P. > > You cannot distinguish p from every path of the tree.
Irrelevant, you distinguish p from every element of P
> Every path of the tree is is from P.
Nope. Every *node* of the tree is from P. However, there is a *subset of nodes* in the tree that is not contained in one element of P.
