In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 19 Jun., 21:16, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Wrong. ~B is proven by the impossibility to distinguish t from every > > > path of the binary tree > > > > Nope. You just said that if actual infinity exists, it is possible to > > distinguish t from every path of the binary tree. Hence you cannot > > prove ~B without assuming ~A. > > I prove ~B, for instance by your inability to distinguish t from T, > with no regard to the truth of A. > > Regards, WM
In the maximal infinite binary tree which I showed how to construct from the infinite set of all naturals, one can distinguish LOTS of other paths from any fixed countable set of paths.
If it can't be done in WM's trees, then his trees aren't maximal infinite binary trees at all