Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 1/25/25 6:09 AM, WM wrote:

On 24.01.2025 13:29, Richard Damon wrote:

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,

 Give the first.

You prove your ineptitude by your lying,
I said:
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
Thus, the "Sure it does" Means, the union of all FISONs does cover N.
There need no be a specific first, as we are allowed to drop any finite set of the FISONs,

 

you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.

 FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no infinite number of them.

Then, what is the highest FISON?
If there is only a finite number of them, THEN there is a maximum.
Your own words prove your logic is broken, and you don't undetstand how finite and infinite work.
FISONs may enumerate themselves individually, but don't enumerate the full set of FISONs.
You are just proving you are too stupid to understand what you are talking, and too stupid to understand that misunderstanding.
Sorry, your brain is just a black hole of mushing logic from being blown to smithereens by the inconsistencies of your logic.

 Regards, WM