Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 1/24/25 4:41 AM, WM wrote:

On 23.01.2025 13:01, Richard Damon wrote:
 

But There is no single UF(n) that equals N, because you can ony get there from the union of an infinite set of FISONs.

 The union of all FISONs does not cover ℕ. Otherwise Cantor's theorem would require the existence of a first necessary FISON. That is mathematics.

Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
Can you show the first number in N that can't be part of a FISON?
You logic presumes that, and thus is incorrect.

>
Your question about the "first" necessary fission is an invalid question, as it is the same as asking for the highest Natural Number, which doesn't exist,

 No, it is not. But there are only invalid handwaving answers.

Then what is the a number that you can't cover? That answer would imply a highest visible FISON, and thus a highest visible Natural Number, but then why can't we see the number just after it?
Beecause your sets just don't work, and violate the law that sets are unchanging,
Sorry, but your stupidity is amazing, and so big you can't even see it yourself.
Part of your problem, is your logic is based on broken logic, like Naive Set Theory was, Your "Set of Necessary FISONs" is a set built by Naive Set Theory, and thus shows your logic is just broken, but because you belive in your broken logic, you can't see the errors in your logic.

 Regards, WM