Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 24.02.2025 19:25, Jim Burns wrote:

On 2/24/2025 12:10 PM, WM wrote:

In the present framework,
you (WM) confuse a claim about each FISON in {F}
with a claim about {F}.

I never talked about {F}.

 

Zermelo creates all natural numbers by induction
and by that guarantees the existence of the set ℕ.

 I guarantee that Zermelo was a finite being
and that, as such, he did not perform any supertask.

Therefore he used induction.

 The existence of the set which
is its.own.only.inductive.subset
is proven from Zermelo's axioms.
We call that set ℕ.

Defined by induction.

 

{1,2}\{1,{2}} = {2}

>
Only such nonsense available?

 I'll grant you that it's trivial.
You (WM) have made it necessary to cover this.

No.Your massive misunderstanding shows up above. I never used {ℕ} or {F}.
Regards, WM