Re: The set of necessary FISONs

On 3/4/2025 3:53 AM, 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 or the continuum have a first element.
 

All you can offer as such is nonsense and infinite deceit.

 Hmmm, that sounds descriptive of yourself.

Self projection out Loud, akin to a form of tourette syndrome personified, perhaps? wrt WM itself?