Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 1/26/25 9:30 AM, WM wrote:

On 26.01.2025 13:38, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/26/25 3:41 AM, WM wrote:

 

It implies that there is not a first FISON. That proves by induction that every FISON can be dropped. Your belief is dysfunctional logic.

>
No, it implies that the "set of necessary FISONs" doesn't exist.

 That means that no first element of Cantor's set exists.

No, because Cantor never talked about the set you are trying to talk about.
Cantor built up the infinite set starting with 0 and adding, as allowed by set theory.
You are just using broken logic to try to show problems with what he did, because you don't understand it.

>
Only by having the FALSE premise of the existance of such a set, can you do your induction,

 Induction does not need this premise. It only needs a first not necessary FISON and the conclusion from any FISON to its successor.

Sure it does, you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs existgs.
You seem to have a whole in your knowledge of Set Theory, a big black hole cause by the explosion to smithereens of your logic by the contradictions your Naive logic generate.

 Regards, WM