Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 1/30/25 2:28 PM, WM wrote:

On 30.01.2025 15:30, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/30/25 4:05 AM, WM wrote:

On 29.01.2025 15:00, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM was thinking very hard :

>

It is Cantor's theorem that every set of ordinals has a first element. FISONs are v. Neumann ordinals.

>
Yes, but some infinite sets don't have a first element.

>
Every finite or infinite set of ordinals or FISONs has a first element! Other sets are irrelevant in the present context.
>

Right, but the "Set of Neccessary FISONs" isn't actually a set,

 But a set that has union ℕ is a set.

But since the "Set of Necessary FISONs" isn't actually a "Set" in anything but Naive set theory, you, like normal, have your logic backwards.
All you are doing is proving you are so stupid you don't understand the basics of the rules of mathematics, logic or sets.

 

A set that doesn't exist doesn't need to have a first element.

 A not existing set is not an infinite set. You said that some infinite sets don't have a first element.

Arguing about a non-existand set, and using its properties to prove something is just illogical.
It seems you think that 36 can't be factored, or at least that is the results of using your logic on that problem.
That fact you can't see the problem just proves your utter stupidity.

 Regards, WM