Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/16/2025 6:18 AM, WM wrote:

On 16.02.2025 00:52, Jim Burns wrote:

{F} has only one inductive subset: {F}

>
Correct.

Proving {F:A(F)} is an inductive subset is
proving {F:A(F)} = {F} is
proving ∀F′ ∈ {F}: A(F′)
Proving ∀F′ ∈ {F}: A(F′) is not
proving A({F})

{F} is a set of omissible FISONs.
{F} isn't an omissible set of FISONs.
Without the leap, there is no conflict.

>
But you are wrong.
If all FISONs are omissible by induction,
then the set of all FISONs is omissible.

Your argument is
⎛ When I (WM) make this unjustified inference
⎜ and also your justified inferences,
⎝ there are contradicting conclusions.
That much seems correct.
⎛ Therefore,
⎝ your justified inferences are wrong.
No.
Better:
Your (WM's) unjustified inferences are wrong.

You (WM) imagine a last finite step,
into the infinite.

All elements can be omitted.
The set can be omitted.

The set is not an element.