Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: WM Newsgroups: sci.math Subject: Re: The set of necessary FISONs Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 09:59:02 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <87e2e677c7802c9c17df6063f340cb5857d5700b@i2pn2.org> <680d4249c9bf1504231a53732ac5096184261495@i2pn2.org> <12a38458-bfb9-4611-9072-eadbb166c0ec@att.net> <908c8431-3d44-496c-8f5c-e33cc9554956@att.net> <1ab7ff67-f1fb-4814-9d28-c883a4756097@att.net> <451804be-c49f-43ab-bca9-8a4af406d945@att.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2025 09:59:03 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38d752fee4f88a2da06b35d50f0a18b6"; logging-data="3026428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18U5o2oLQEfJ4SfVLESVH+mPDp5LV/4yuE=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:qZrht8PZ1pBJ+2qVNQdrSh7Rn1c= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 2726 On 06.02.2025 03:29, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/5/25 2:18 PM, WM wrote: >> On 05.02.2025 19:43, Jim Burns wrote: >> >>> It might just matter what a natural number, induction, >>> a FISON, and a union are. >> >> The axiom of induction:∀P( P(1) /\ ∀k(P(k) ==> P(k+1)) ==> ∀n (P(n))) >> >> P(1): U(F(n) \ F(1)) = ℕ. >> >> P(k): U(F(n) \ {F(1), F(2), ..., F(k)}) = ℕ >> ==> >> P(k+1): U(F(n) \ {F(1), F(2), ..., F(k+1)}) = ℕ. >> > And thus you can claim that no F(n) is "necessary". My proof is this: IF U(F(n)) = ℕ, THEN U({ }) = { } = ℕ. > > Doesn't mean you can't use a set of them to build the set of Natural > Numbers. It means precisely that. The premise is wrong because { } = ℕ is wrong. Regards, WM