On 16 Dez., 22:37, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <a97af6af-da7b-4a5d-9f81-722993b2c...@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 16 Dez., 00:08, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > 0 > > > > > / \ > > > > > 0 1 > > > > > / \ / \ > > > > > 0 1 0 1 > > > > > ........... > > > > > I constructed this very tree by all finite paths that extend from the > > > > root node to a node at level n. Then I appended the sequence 000... > > > > Thus you have no path that eventually becomes '010101...', > > > In mathematics such a claim must be proved by nodes. Which is the > > first bit of 0.010101... that is missing in my CIBT? > > Since WM keeps his CIBT under wraps so no one else can know what paths > it does or does not contain, only WM can say. > > But one of the paths missing from any tree each of whose paths are > limited to finitely many 1's. as WM's tree described above is, is > 0.0101010... which has too many 1's.
I used just this path as the first one to construct the above tree. You must have seen it!!! (if paths are defined by nodes).