Re: The set of necessary FISONs

WM explained :

On 04.03.2025 12:53, FromTheRafters wrote:

WM explained on 3/4/2025 :

On 04.03.2025 02:05, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/3/25 4:20 AM, WM wrote:

>

Every set of FISONs which is assumed to be ℕ must have a first element. No FISON can serve as such. That is proven by induction.

>
But the claim isn't that some FISON is N, it is that some infinite set of FISONs, none individually required, will union to N.

>
If there is a set, then it has a first element.

 Wrong, neither the emptyset

>
If there is a set of FISONs being ℕ, then it has a first element.

You should make up your mind about whether you speak of ordinals or cardinals. In a well order, every subset has a 'least' element being a 'first' element.

You are a dishonest person.

Says the person whom cut the context.