Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/2/25 11:34 AM, WM wrote:

On 02.02.2025 13:27, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/2/25 6:34 AM, WM wrote:

On 02.02.2025 01:33, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/1/25 1:17 PM, WM wrote:

>

The set of FISONs assumed to satisfy U(A(n)) = ℕ cannot be empty. But we can prove by induction that every FISON can be discarded without changing the union. That disproves the assumption.
>

And that is your problem, you make assumptions that are unwarented,

>
I think you've got it! Yes, U(A(n)) is not ℕ.

 

But N is in the union of any inifinite set of FISONs.

 Then the assumption U(A(n)) = ℕ would not be unwarranted.

Since I don't recall you actually DEFINING what A(n) means, any assumption about it would be unwarranted.
If it is supposed to be the "needed' FISONs, why would a statement about being able to make N from FISON say anythiing about needed FISONs.
You are just establishing that you think statments like 36 can not be factored to be reasonable assumptins.

>
What isn't, is your A(n), as none of the FISONs are individually needed.

 But all can be dropped without changing the union.
 

Nope, just any.
Sorry, you brain is just empty.

Regards, WM