On 29 Okt., 23:16, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 29, 5:51 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 29 Okt., 20:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 29, 4:50 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 29 Okt., 01:56, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 28, 5:31 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > If so, you have shown that b_oo does not exist, because it cannot be > > > > > > distinguished from all the other elements whereas every other element > > > > > > can be distinguished from all others. > > > > > > Trivially: forall n in N [ b_oo =/= b_n ] > > > > > It is not meant how you distinguish b_oo from every b_n, but from all. > > > > Well, I was using the meaning of "all" such that if there is no i in N > > > with > > > b_oo = b_i, then b_oo is distinguished from all. What is your meaning > > > of > > > "all"? > > <snip failure to answer question> > > Please answer the question.-
You get the answer, when pondering about the complete Binary Tree and the Binary Tree that only consists of all finite paths.
If you cannot find a difference, then you see that all simply is all and b_oo is nothing but a bad dream.
