Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/16/25 5:45 AM, WM wrote:

On 15.02.2025 19:31, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/15/25 9:58 AM, WM wrote:

 

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.

>
No, that would imply that it is meaningful to replace a removed FISON by smaller FISONs.

>
WHy?

 Try to find it out. If you are so clever as you believe you could.
 Regards, WM
 

WHy should I try to justify something that is wrong.
YOU are the one that claims it is meaningful, even though it isn't.
YOU are the one with the burden of proof,
YOU are the one that has effectively admitted that they are just making up stuff because they don't understand what they are talking about.
You are just proving you don't understand how logic works, because you only know naivety.