Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/10/25 4:47 AM, WM wrote:

On 09.02.2025 18:04, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/9/25 9:50 AM, WM wrote:

On 09.02.2025 14:08, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/9/25 5:46 AM, WM wrote:

On 08.02.2025 23:28, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/8/25 2:44 PM, WM wrote:

On 08.02.2025 12:51, Richard Damon wrote:
>

And thus you claim that 36 can not be factored, as all of its factors are not needed.

>
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 36.
According to Cantor, the set of factors has a smallest element, 1, and the set of necessary factors has a smallest element, 6, or if double application is not allowed, 4.

>

And which of those was "necessary"?
>
I don't need 6, because I can factor into 4 * 9

>
4 is not necessary because it is smaller than 6, and 6 is sufficient.

>
But then your "necessary" has a application order, which the word doesn't have.

>
I apply Cantor's theorem B.

>
Do you mean axiom 8? I see nothing in his theorems that talk about anything like this.

 "Theorem B: Every embodiment of different numbers of the first and the second number class has a smallest number, a minimum."
 Regards, WM

So, your "Set of Required FISONs" isn't a set of the first or second class, it is an empty set.
You can't apply properties of something that it isn't.
Your problem is you are just incapable of understanding Cantor, because you mentally reject the foundation.
Only an idiot tries to something they are certain is wrong.