Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 2/28/25 11:44 AM, WM wrote:

On 28.02.2025 15:46, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 5:53 AM, WM wrote:

On 27.02.2025 05:06, Richard Damon wrote:
>

And where does that use the term "Induction"

>
He does not use the term but the matter: { } and with a also {a}.

 

So, you admit that you are just misquoting the source,

 No, Zermelo uses induction. I did not say that he uses the term induction.

No, what you describe is NOT "induction". You just don't seem to know what it means, or are just intentionally using the wrong term to hide your deceptions.
LIES are not a form of proof, except to the ignorance and stupidity of the teller.

 

Yes, at any finite point in the iteration, the set build so far has a maximum element, but when we let the process complete (even though we can't do it) the result changes to not have a maximum element.

 The process cannot be completed with FISONs. Each one is finite, and so is their potentially infinite number. That does never change.
 

It can not be completed with a finite number of them. It can be completed with the complete set of them.
You are stuck in a finite logic that just can't handle the complete set, and thus you think it can't be done, because you logic can't handle it.
But then, your logic can't handle the Natural Numbers, so nothing actually mattered.

Regards, WM