On 18 Jun., 14:44, 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. > > You want to show > > ~A [Follows from ( A ==> B, ~B) ==> ~A ] > > by proving ~B > > (Note that assuming ~A is circular) > > <snip evasion> > > Please answer yes or no > > t is not an element of P >
The actually infinite path t is not an element of P and not a path of T, because t does not exist. Proof by the fact that t cannot be distinguished from the set P after its elements have been ordered as paths of the tree.