On Apr 2, 10:45 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 2 Apr., 00:14, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The difference between the trees is not which > > subsets of nodes exist, but which subsets are > > considered to be paths. > > The tree of all finite paths and the tree of all paths like every tree > has infinite paths. Therefore there is no tree which has only finite > subsets that are considered paths. >
You confuse subsets of nodes, which belong to both trees, with paths which are defined differently for the two different trees. Only in one of the trees can a subset of nodes without a last node be considered a path.
> > Is this tree > > 0. > 0 1 > 0 1 0 1 > ... > > that one with infinite subsets not considered paths?
I do not know. You have shows me a set of nodes, but have not told me which subsets are considered paths.