Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 1/27/25 6:35 AM, WM wrote:

On 26.01.2025 23:31, Richard Damon wrote:

you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs exists.

 Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.
 Regards, WM
 

So?
I guess you don't know what logic is.
You seem to agree that N exists, and then you try to say it can't.
Sorry, your brain is just mush from the explosion to smithereens of your logic system from all its inconsistancies,