Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The set of necessary FISONs
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:12:55 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <vn3gk7$31l2d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vmo1bs$1rnl$1@dont-email.me>
 <3a603a4009f4bdb24c23fc0851757c687e136bc8@i2pn2.org>
 <vmo4s0$22am$1@dont-email.me>
 <a80db53803dda35ea37db12428ecd4a6260a0ebe@i2pn2.org>
 <vmqhj1$v2rb$1@dont-email.me>
 <d3c698a395c33f2cc8568b613888ec4a3c27df4b@i2pn2.org>
 <vmr1e1$12dva$1@dont-email.me>
 <133ef773ac71037ba38a5d922f64822d8f0ef7a3@i2pn2.org>
 <vmvn82$25r19$2@dont-email.me>
 <06783956e11e3791285bfbee537ec1b4ae44100d@i2pn2.org>
 <vn2gq3$2ouuo$4@dont-email.me>
 <68035b84d5259f49968914e50a8a9c0269136e3e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:12:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="635ba437aaf51caf1bc9969eec7ea59c";
	logging-data="3200077"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FRgnJsdu6Xxrzb7j2VoR0Cmzfh6xEoAc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:L7mx9NSp6CN0HZEOFThT8NLfz40=
In-Reply-To: <68035b84d5259f49968914e50a8a9c0269136e3e@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2434

On 1/25/2025 5:59 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 25 Jan 2025 12:09:56 +0100 schrieb WM:
>> On 24.01.2025 13:29, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/24/25 4:41 AM, WM wrote:
>>>> On 23.01.2025 13:01, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But There is no single UF(n) that equals N, because you can ony get
>>>>> there from the union of an infinite set of FISONs.
>>>> The union of all FISONs does not cover ℕ. Otherwise Cantor's theorem
>>>> would require the existence of a first necessary FISON.
> Cantor’s theorem does not force a necessary FISON. We already established
> that no finite set of FISONs suffices.
> 
>>> you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
>> FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
>> infinite number of them.
> What the FUCK that makes NO sense.
> 

WOW! Holy shit. wow.