Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/18/25 10:22 AM, WM wrote:

On 18.02.2025 13:25, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/18/25 4:53 AM, WM wrote:

On 18.02.2025 04:02, Richard Damon wrote:

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

>

A set without elements is an empty set and not capable of producing ℕ.

>

But an empty set of REQUIRED elements doesn't mean we can't have a set of sufficient elements.

>
There is no element that could be a meaningful member of any sufficient set. Therefore there is no sufficient set.

 

Of course there are, its just they are not individually needed, but are collectively sufficient.

 For every FISON there is the question: Can it belong to a collectively sufficient set. For every FISON the answer is no.
 Regards, WM
 

Only in your world of error.
Name a FISON that can not be put into a set that is sufficient set, one whose union is the set of Natural Numbers.
Since the set of ALL FISONs will be such a set, and every FISON belongs to that set, your answer is proven incorrect.
It seems you don't understand the meaning of the words you use, because your Naive logic isn't correct.
Sorry, you are just repeating your error showing that you have no capablility to understand what you are talking about.