On 17 Jun., 20:19, 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." > > A: actually infinite paths exist, > B: the infinite tree contains a path p that can be > distinguished from every path of P. > > You agree > > A ==> B > > So if A is true then B is true > and your claim is false.
So it is. > > > What do you understand by "all nodes"? > > "all nodes of t are in the tree" > There is no node that is in t but is not in the tree
That is correct. > > "all nodes of t are in P" > There is no node that is in t but is not in an element of P
Also correct. Every node of t and all predecessor nodes are in one path of P. > > WM: the list of paths P is the same as the tree > > Nope. You have agreed that the tree contains a subset of > nodes that is not contained in one element of the list of paths P.
All subsets of nodes that are in the tree also are in the list of paths. Why should the subset belong to one element of the list of paths if it does not belong to a single path in the tree?