On Dec 16, 11:43 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 16 Dez., 07:18, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 12:12 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 15 Dez., 21:27, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 10:22 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > What do you mean I appended the sequence 000..., Can you explain that > > > > in details. I mean the full detail of how did you construct this tree > > > > by this appending. How do you prove the the resulting constructed tree > > > > is the infinite binary tree. DETAILS please. At least refer me to an > > > > article that has all the details about that alleged construction if > > > > there is any. > > > > The finite paths are the following: > > > 0. > > > 0.0 > > > 0.1 > > > 0.00 > > > 0.01 > > > 0.10 > > > 0.11 > > > ... > > > > Each of these paths now is equipped with an infinite tail 000... > > > > 0.000... > > > 0.0000... > > > 0.1000... > > > 0.00000... > > > 0.01000... > > > 0.10000... > > > 0.11000... > > > ... > > > > Some paths appear more than once. Some nodes are constructed more than > > > once. But that does not matter. This set of paths is nevertheless > > > countable. > > > And there is no "diagonal" that *at a finite level n* differs from all > > > paths. > > > Ok but the resulting construction is not the INFINITE binary tree > > we've already defined. > > Liar! The resulting construction is what you accepted as the complete > infinite Binary Tree CIBT. Should I >
Do you think that calling me a Liar, is a valid way of proving that the tree you've constructed is the CIBT itself?
You need to prove that the tree constructed by your choice appendings of infinite tails to countably many finite stumps of the CIBT, is itself the CIBT.
So far you didn't supply any. So your claim is just a blind assertion nothing more nothing less.