Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 1/27/25 9:33 AM, WM wrote:

On 27.01.2025 15:14, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 27 Jan 2025 12:35:56 +0100 schrieb WM:

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.

Obviously, but not for infinite sets of FISONs.

 Also an infinite set needs a first element. But no FISON is necessary or sufficient.
 Regards, WM

Which means the set of "necessary FISONs" doesn't exist.
That doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it just shows your logic is broken.
we can build an infinite number of infinite sets of FISONs whose union is the Natural Numbers, that no one particular one is "necessary" doesn't mean anything, except that the infinite series doesn't have a "last" elements, but that fact comes out of the basic properties of infinity, that an infinite series doesn't HAVE a "last" element.
So, you logic is just shown to be based on lies and errors.