> Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 20:07:01 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse: >> WM <email@example.com> writes: >> >> > Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 17:48:42 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse: >> >> WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: <snip> >> >> > You have not defined any path. >> > >> > I have defined three sets of paths, namely leading from the root node >> > to each node and thereafter being completed by a tail of 000..., or >> > 111..., or 010101... >> >> Why are you answering yourself? > > "You have not defined any path." was your assertion - as false as your > present question.
No. You said it in reply to me. Even the quote marks show that it was you. The Message-ID is <email@example.com>
It's almost impossible to discuss anything when you can deny even this. I think you are not in control of what you are saying anymore. I suggest you take a moment to review what's been said.
<snip> >> > Please write every path in as simple terms as you can. Perhaps that >> > will remove your block. >> >> Funny. Do you still claim not to understand the definition of the set >> of paths or do you want me to write it out in some other form? > > I understand your definition of a set that has cardinality 1. I will > have to see how you define a path avoiding a finite definition, a > so-called non-WMpath.
If you don't understand the standard definition of all the paths in the tree (I am sure you do, but you pretend not to) then how can you say anything about it at all?
Actually, maybe you don't understand it? I've always thought you are being disingenuous in your replies, but it could be that you really don't know how to specify the set of all paths, and can therefore only think of it in your own narrow terms.