On Jun 20, 4:25 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
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)
> I prove ~B, for instance by your inability to distinguish t from T, > with no regard to the truth of A. >
Nope. You need to distinguish the subset of nodes t from every element of P, not from the tree, and you have repeatedly agreed that you can distinguish t from every element of P if A is true. You have never shown that you cannot distinguish t from every element of P without regard to the truth of A.
We are left we the result that you cannot prove A or ~A.