> On 22 Jan., 21:18, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > >> > That is potential infinity. That proof is not necessary, because the >> > set is obviously potentially infinite. No, you shoudl give a proof, >> > that there is a larger k than all finite k. >> >> Er, no. When I say that the union is infinite, I do not mean that it >> contains an infinite number. > > But you mean that the tree contains infinite paths. And just that is > impossible without ... > > In order to shorten this discussion please have a look at > http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/284328/how-to-distinguish-between-the-complete-and-the-incomplete-infinite-binary-tree
No. It's irrelevant.
We're talking about whether you can prove that
is finite. I'm not switching topics to paths in trees (despite the fact that the ignorance of your question is obvious).
> There it has meanwhile turned out ... But see it with your own eyes > what you would not believe if I told you. > > The index omega is in reach, it seems.
You're playing your usual little game of trying to change the topic. I won't have it.
I take it that this new tack is so that you don't have to concede the point: there is no mathematical publication which claims that the above union contains elements larger than any natural, nor any publication which claims that this is what it means to be infinite.
If you want to discuss paths in trees, we must first finish this point.
-- Jesse F. Hughes
"Two years from now, spam will be solved." -- Bill Gates, Jan 24, 2004