On 26 Jan., 23:10, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <054da2be-2f0a-4290-b356-10eb0a5e1...@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 26 Jan., 01:46, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > So you agree that there is a level omega? > > Why should I agree to add another level to the infinitely many finite > levels that must already exist in order to have a COMPLETE INFINITE > BINARY TREE at all?
These levels exist already after constructing all finite initial segments of all paths, abbreviated by "all finite paths". Or can you determine a node or level of the complete infinite Binary Tree that does not exist?