Date: Apr 2, 2013 6:20 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<b19f5085-73a0-46c6-a18e-8323450d6fc9@m9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> 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.


The standard definition of a "path" in a tree is a MAXIMAL sequence of
nodes linked by the parent-child relation.

Thus every path in a tree starts with the rot node and either ends with
a terminal node having no child nodes in that tree or does not end at
all.

What WM keeps miscalling paths are more properly called FISONS (Finite
Initial Sequences of Nodes) but should not be called paths.

But WM has a great disregard for the proper use of terms, and also often
conflates membership in a set with being a subset of that set.
--