Re: The set of necessary FISONs

Le 03/02/2025 à 18:22, WM a écrit :

On 03.02.2025 16:15, Python wrote:

Le 03/02/2025 à 16:11, crank Wolfang Mückenheim aka WM a écrit :

German A(n), or English F(n) is the FISON {1, 2, 3, ..., n}.
The assumption is that U(F(n)) = ℕ.
>
By induction we prove that every F(n) can be removed without changing the union. Therefore the assumption leads to { } = ℕ. Therefore the assumption is wrong.

 Anyone able to claim such a fallacy

 You appear far unable to understand this discussion. Every intelligent mathematician understands: All natural numbers created by Peano induction are subject to induction and can be removed by the same induction. Matheology needs the wselfcontradictory assumption that the set ℕ is constructed by induction but cannot be deconstructed by induction.

Name ONE mathematician who supports your idiotic claim. One.

By the way, have you meanwhile understood why Rennenkampff's example failed? Hint: First you have to enumerate the euros.

Your "argument" didn't use enumeration. So my objection stands. So does Rennenkampf's.