In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 10 Jan., 22:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > WM can prevent himself from thinking outside the finite only box of > > WMytheology, but, fortunately cannot prevent anyone else from doing so. > > -- > > Prove your position by identifying a path that is missing in the > Binary Tree and tell me by what combination of nodes you identified > it.
From MY binary tree none are missing, but since WM will not list for me the paths in HIS tree, I have no way of knowing which paths he has included and which ones he hasw therefore omitted.
> Unless you cannot do that I do not believe that there are more > than countably many paths definable by nodes
What you believe is not evidence, nor proof of anything except the unreliability of your WMytheology
And I have no idea what your "defined by nodes" allows or does not allow until you give an example of some path that is "defined by nodes" and a path which is defined some other way.
Note: I can define a path by citing the set of levels at which it branches left.
For any irrational real in [0,1], I can define either of two paths by its binary expansion. For binary rationals (having a finite and an infinite binary expansion) any of 4 paths. --