Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: The set of necessary FISONs Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:45:39 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <1c8c4e43283da583e55f14e9b54c0d8f07864c88@i2pn2.org> References: <8a4c44c4ba0d3260a90d463acfa814fbc83f557a@i2pn2.org> <853f9685ed5be27fedb6486ca2931ef189b920df@i2pn2.org> <5aefc0d0b454a230e721a8cdb8400cb25ea9a8c1@i2pn2.org> <340761ab1ceb68741d949331a0c64a3d6d5fa237@i2pn2.org> <5fccdbd91a997aadcfde3843cdc09e3fe7f515cf@i2pn2.org> <453a56f5a2e8545cd171150970864c62ecff7442@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:45:39 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="626721"; 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: 3007 Lines: 24 Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:34:20 +0100 schrieb WM: > On 18.02.2025 16:28, joes wrote: >> Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:18:52 +0100 schrieb WM: >>> On 18.02.2025 11:09, joes wrote: >>>> Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 09:54:02 +0100 schrieb WM: >>> >>>>> Therefore I gave you an example that you should be able to >>>>> understand: >>>>> If every human has ended, then the human race has ended. >>>>> Analogously: If every FISON has been removed without changing the >>>>> union, >>>>> then the set {F(1), F(2), F(3), ...} has been removed without >>>>> changing the union. >>>> But the union has changed from a nonempty set to an empty one. >>> That's the proof. Nice that you now understand it. >> Um, that proves that you cannot remove everything without changing the >> union. What else could you have meant by that? > We can remove every FISON without changing the *assumed* union ℕ. It doesn’t matter what you assume the union to be. You quite sensibly denied that it is empty, yet you claim it would (not? I’m confused) change. -- 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.