Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The set of necessary FISONs
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 07:38:39 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e51fcde5622ccc6beab7882831e5f7033c04d150@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>
 <965ee9868f28953d437113d0d38f069815499a3f@i2pn2.org>
 <vn4sfi$3ijdb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:38:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1229187"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vn4sfi$3ijdb$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2449
Lines: 36

On 1/26/25 3:41 AM, WM wrote:
> On 25.01.2025 14:56, joes wrote:
> 
>> There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
> 
> Obviously every union of FISONs is finite, because there are never two 
> consecutive actually infinite sets in ℕ, and every FISON has an infinite 
> set as successors.
> 
> Obviously every unbion of FISONs is a FISON.

Every union of a FINITE number of FISONs is finite.

The problem is that you then apply that to a union of an INFINITE set of 
FISON.

>>
>>> Do you agree that or every FISON the question whether it is necessary
>>> can be answered?
>> Yes, in the negative. That does not imply the nonexistence of a
>> sufficient set.
> 
> It implies that there is not a first FISON. That proves by induction 
> that every FISON can be dropped. Your belief is dysfunctional logic.

No, it implies that the "set of necessary FISONs" doesn't exist.

Only by having the FALSE premise of the existance of such a set, can you 
do your induction,

Of course, by that same logic, 1 is equal to 2, and nothing, and 
everything is true and false.

> 
> Regards, WM
>