Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 1/29/25 3:57 AM, WM wrote:

On 29.01.2025 05:07, Richard Damon wrote:
 

>
YOU are the one that says there needs to be a "required" FISON.

 If there is an infinite set, then it has a first element. But for every element it is clear that it is useless to get U(F(n)) = ℕ. Hence the claim is nonsense.
 Regards, WM

Yes, but your "set of required FISONs" isn't actually a Set by any valid logic, only under Naive Set theory which has been proven broken.
All you are doing is proving that you logic is just based on Naive Logic on Naive Mathematics using Naive Set Theory tha that has been proven to be invalid, and that you are too stupid to understand that your logic IS thus invalid, and too stupid to even understand that concept.
Sorry, when you "proof" begins by the assumption of something no more real that fairy dust powered magical rainbow unicorns, you have started at a loss.