Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/15/25 6:50 AM, WM wrote:

On 14.02.2025 19:02, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/14/25 11:28 AM, WM wrote:

 

The definition is that it is a set of FISONs which has a smallest element that is not as useless as a cup of coffee.

 

Which, as I said, is a definition in Naive Set theory,

 Obviously you have no clue of set theory, be it naive or advanced.
Every set of ordinals has a smallest element. Look up the notion of well-order.
 Regards, WM

Every NON-EMPTY set of Ordinals has a smallest element.
The problem is your "claimed set" can't actually defined in anything but Naive set theory, and the fact that you admit that it might be needed shows you have an understanding of the problem.
The set you can actually define, is the set of FISONs that are individually required to build up a set that can union to the Natural Numbers, but that CAN be empty, and we can still make a set that reaches there.
Just like we can factor 36, even though none of the factors are empty.
The problem is your definition is the equivalent of needing to find the MAXIMUM in an infinite set of Ordinals, and that doesn't exist (but does if the set is finite, which apparently is all you can think of).
Thus we show that you whole arguement is based on just lying about what you are trying to do and throwing up strawmen that don't matter for the actual problem.
Of course, then we get to the problem that is seems you are mentally deficient in the ability to process ideas of infinity, but are so stupid you thing you understand and that your dificiency says that infinity can't actually exist.
Sorry, but that is the facts.