Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 1/29/25 6:47 AM, WM wrote:

On 29.01.2025 11:53, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:26:35 +0100 schrieb WM:

 

But its union cannot be ℕ because a non-empty
set of FISONs would be necessary.

Why should a necessary set exist?

 The set cannot be empty. Therefore it has elements. For each element we can show that it is not leading to the aim. Therefore no such set U(F(n)) = ℕ exists.
 Regards, WM
   

The set of "required" FISONs is empty.
That doesn't mean we can't build an infinite set of FISONs whose union is the set of Natual Numbers.
We can in fact build an infinite set of infinite sets of FISONs whose union is the set of Natural Numbers, it just is a fact that no single FISON is in all of them, so none are "required"
The fact that you can't understand that FACT, just shows your stupidity.
Do you disagree that the union of all FISONs that end in a odd number will cover N, if not what number doesn't get covered.
By the same token, the union of all FISONs that end in a even number will cover N.
Thus, no individual FISON is needed, we just need to select an infinite set of FISONs to cover N.
Your failure to process that statement and even try to refute it says that you know in the back of your head that you are wrong, but you won't listen to that voice, and thus make yourself an idiot.