On 26 Dez., 21:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> As usual, you draw unwarranted conclusions from everything. > > As one identifies a path as a particular set of digits or nodes, how is > asking you to identify your paths in any way overlooking them?
Since I have constructed or covered all paths that can be defined by nodes. There is no node that you could name that could define a path that is not in the CIBT that I constructed.
> You have also not proved that your set of paths is countable, which can > only be done by proving that they can be listed, and most easily done by > providing such a list.
The paths that can be identified by nodes can be listed. It is the set of all finite paths extending from the root node to a given node. You can append them by whatever tail you want, because all these tails are also covered by my construction. There is no node left out!