In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> > anyone with a minimal education in those realms can follow the nonsenses > > that WM is so fond of), > > > You mean those eminent authorities who have many thousands of > reputation point in MathOverflow and defend the existence of an > omegath level in the Binary Tree? Are you also such an eminent > autority? Or what is your explanation of the fact that the Binary > Tree > constructed by all finite initial segments of all paths cannot be > distinguished by the Binary Tree that in addition contains all > infinite paths? It is impossible to exclude any infinite path (as a set of nodes) from a tree without also excluding some finite node in that infinite path and thus also excluding the finite initial segment ending at than node.
But WM's alleged tree contain all nodes but not all infinite paths.
Thus WM's "infinite binary tree that contains only all finite initial segments of the infinite paths but not all infinite paths" is pure illusion.