Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/15/25 9:58 AM, WM wrote:

On 15.02.2025 14:47, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/15/25 6:50 AM, WM wrote:

On 14.02.2025 19:02, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/14/25 11:28 AM, WM wrote:

>

The definition is that it is a set of FISONs which has a smallest element that is not as useless as a cup of coffee.

>

Which, as I said, is a definition in Naive Set theory,

>
Obviously you have no clue of set theory, be it naive or advanced.
Every set of ordinals has a smallest element. Look up the notion of well-order.

 

Every NON-EMPTY set of Ordinals has a smallest element.

 So it is.

>
The problem is your "claimed set" can't actually defined in anything but Naive set theory,

 It is defined in modern set theory.

Then write a modern set theory definition of it.

 

and the fact that you admit that it might be needed shows you have an understanding of the problem.

 Of course, better than you.

And the fact that you EDIT what you reply to make things out of context just proves that you are nothing but a liar.
That you try to show that you know what you are talking about just proves these aren't "honest mistakes", but DELIBERATE FRAUD.

>
The set you can actually define, is the set of FISONs that are individually required to build up a set that can union to the Natural Numbers, but that CAN be empty, and we can still make a set that reaches there.

 No, that would imply that it is meaningful to replace a removed FISON by smaller FISONs.

WHy?
Are you saying that have any idea what is actually "meaningful"?
Since you have shown that your logic is based on Naive logic, and that your concepts are meaningless, why should anyone trust your opinions.
Since you have proven that yo don't know what "simple" terms like "Axiom" means, you have disqualified yourself as an expert.

 Regards, WM