Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The set of necessary FISONs
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aaeab94532078a1c6923061a7210b34ba5398a7a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vmo1bs$1rnl$1@dont-email.me>
	<ee4e189d-56bc-4ed7-b7b7-cd71fc4d2349@att.net> <vmqh9k$urua$1@dont-email.me>
	<903de8e1-3538-4cfe-9f7a-6509eda47ab6@att.net>
	<vmsvfv$1hn5k$1@dont-email.me>
	<3844edd7-0750-4418-bff6-2759817446b3@att.net>
	<vmvn1h$25r19$1@dont-email.me>
	<27377646-137a-4f8f-a7bb-a75707b2da96@att.net>
	<vn2gcf$2ouuo$2@dont-email.me>
	<d90c478d-6806-4ffe-83be-a5d7674bb5e3@att.net>
	<b82a0915-400a-4f77-9309-44eef432e9f4@att.net>
	<vn50eo$3kgi6$2@dont-email.me>
	<4d349964-211f-42f1-936f-81c22ae54cb5@att.net> <vn7vns$ra97$2@dont-email.me>
	<e3f89d8c-d214-453a-91f4-9023e744fed2@att.net>
	<vna72s$1ng1k$2@dont-email.me>
	<6e0c8ab2-402a-43a5-a348-0c727eae6a2e@att.net>
	<vnat4s$1s6ha$4@dont-email.me>
	<e43b1c65-4424-4e0c-9b2e-65e0e463815b@att.net>
	<vnconr$29v5v$1@dont-email.me>
	<87e2e677c7802c9c17df6063f340cb5857d5700b@i2pn2.org>
	<vnd4h8$2c0st$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2054845"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2315
Lines: 15

Am Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:47:53 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 29.01.2025 11:53, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:26:35 +0100 schrieb WM:
> 
>>> But its union cannot be ℕ because a non-empty set of FISONs would be
>>> necessary.
>> Why should a necessary set exist?
> The set cannot be empty.
Oh, but you showed the opposite:

> Therefore it has elements. For each element we
> can show that it is not leading to the aim. Therefore no such set
> U(F(n)) = ℕ exists.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.