Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/10/2025 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/10/25 10:02 AM, WM wrote:

On 10.02.2025 13:37, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/10/25 4:47 AM, WM wrote:

"Theorem B:
Every embodiment of different numbers of
the first and the second number class has
a smallest number, a minimum."

>

So, your "Set of Required FISONs" isn't
a set of the first or second class,
it is an empty set.

>
So it is.

Which just shows that
no particular FISON is needed.
 Doesn't mean that you can't use
a set of FISONs to make
the set of Natural Numbers.

Yes.
⎛ If no FISON is required
⎜ then no FISON is possible.
⎝
Is a modal fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_fallacy

As pointed out,
your logic says you can't factor 36,
as none of the factors of 35 are "required",
since {4, 9} and {2, 18} are disjoint sets,
so no one factor is necessary.