In article <8df8f46b-64f3-459a-a476-1099e593c088@ek5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Gus Gassmann <horand.gassmann@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 3:32 pm, SPQR <S...@roman.gov> wrote: > > In article > > <bf5b686b-74fa-4041-b028-cbfcb96f7...@s2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > You cannot obtain from the nodes of the Binary tree whether or not it > > > conatins any infinite path. > > > > A binary tree containing infinitely many nodes must contain at least one > > infinite path. > > Ahem. That was wrong yesterday, and it is still wrong today.
Sorry! I seem to have a kink in my thinker almost as bad as WM's.
I should have said that a COMPLETE infinite binary tree (complete requires all paths to be of equal length) with infinitely many nodes must have all paths infinite.
> However, > it is ironic that WM admits that his method says nothing about the > number of infinite paths in the complete binary tree. It particular, > his method cannot settle the question whether there is one, countably > many, uncountably many, or none at all. In other words, he admits his > proof is wrong. > > > WM again demonstrated his profound misunderstanding of binary trees. > > This is a true statement.
