In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jan., 09:20, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 25, 9:11 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 25 Jan., 09:07, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 25, 8:57 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > "Write a sequence like xxxxxxxxxx... and do never stop" > > > > > > Perfectly acceptable finite description of an infinite sequence. > > > > > Of course, nothing however that could be diagonalized in a Cantor-list > > > or could be the result of diagonalization.
> > > > Why not? The diagonalization of a list with finite description is a > > finite > > desciption. > > The diagonalization of finite descriptions does not necessarily supply > a description at all.
Maybe not in Wolkenmuekenheim, but then no one but WM ever works there. > >
> Of interest is this: If the same set of > nodes has to describe both, the Binary Tree with finite paths and that > with infinite paths, then it is impossible to discern, alone by nodes, > whether we work in the former or the latter.
There is no such thing as a Complete Infinite Binary Tree with finite paths.
At least not according to any standard definition of Complete Infinite Binary Trees.
A path in any binary tree of the sort being considered, a Complete Infinite Binary Tree, is, by definition, necessarily maximal, in that no node can be appended to any path and still have a path in that tree. and so none of WM's finite chains of nodes in a CIBT can be a maximal chain, thus also never a path, as there is always a child of its last node which can be added to it making a longer but still finite chain of nodes.
> Hence I can assert
No you cannot, since your basic assumptions about Complete Infinite Binary Trees are proved false. --