Sujet : Re: The set of necessary FISONs
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 31. Jan 2025, 19:06:52
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <a95b989f68cf6b947facf773746935ee852d6d97@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:57:19 +0100 schrieb WM:
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.
Nobody claimed there was a necessary set.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.