On Dec 13, 12:18 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > It really depends on how to do you define "Path",
You are VERY wrong. Something can DEPEND on x ONLY if x is CHANGING. THERE ARE NOT *multiple*possible* definitions of "path" here! THE ONLY relevant definition is the one that WM HIMSELF is using, since HE IS THE ONE DEFINING the problem!
> if you assert that > it must begin with 0 and if you assert that it must be undirectional > then YES you are correct (given the degenerate path is there).
EVERYbody, INCLUDING WM, asserts that. STOP prattling about irrelevancies and CONFRONT THE ACTUAL issue! There is simply NO "natural" passage to a "limit" here. EVERYthing WM is saying is being said ABOUT THE FINITE case. The infinite case is simply DIFFERENT. For one thing, all the finite paths END and all the infinite ones DON'T. All the finite paths TERMINATE AT ONE UNIQUE NODE and all the infinite ones don't.
THE REAL ISSUE here is WM's equivocation on what it means for a collection-of-paths "To Cover" (that's my verb, not his) a collection-of-nodes. THAT IS THE ONLY thing that MERITS your attention here.
WM has been in here with this shit for over a decade. If you are going to participate then you need to get up to speed, and quickly. His premise is so blatantly bullshit that it really should NOT be taking you THIS long!