On 10 Jan., 22:46, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <9eb26ed8-245f-4729-b4a2-da48587b5...@d4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 10 Jan., 19:11, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 10, 9:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 10 Jan., 18:47, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Your binary tree have UNCOUNTABLY many paths each defined as a > > > sequence of labels of its NODES, even though it has countably many > > > nodes. That's what you are not getting. Anyhow. > > > I would easily get it if you could identify a path that supports your > > assertion by being identified by nodes. Prove your claim by > > identifying a path that is missing > > We cannot determine whether a path is missing until we have a list of > the paths which are not missing
Paths are determined, in mathematics, by nodes. I stand on the grounds of mathematics.