Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/17/25 2:22 PM, WM wrote:

On 16.02.2025 19:39, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/16/25 11:51 AM, WM wrote:

 

Show the first FISON which changes the premise U(F) = ℕ.

 

Why does there need to be?

 Otherwise there is none, and the conclusion { } = ℕ is valid.
 Regards, WM

No, just because none are REQUIRED doesn't mean that none can be used.
After all, there are no required factors of 36, as we can do either 4*9 or 3*12, so none of them are required.
Your claim is the same as saying we can't factor 36.
Sorry, but your logic is just faulty.