Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: The set of necessary FISONs
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:13:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <16f941fd203714c7764395347ee1fe09d6502ff5@i2pn2.org>
References: <vmo1bs$1rnl$1@dont-email.me> <vohp3q$28sjf$1@dont-email.me>
	<b9b0c514-a71c-4cd8-b291-a4847db04795@att.net>
	<vokmsi$2t0ls$1@dont-email.me>
	<8a4c44c4ba0d3260a90d463acfa814fbc83f557a@i2pn2.org>
	<voktdg$2tt35$1@dont-email.me>
	<853f9685ed5be27fedb6486ca2931ef189b920df@i2pn2.org>
	<vonjm5$3ghe5$1@dont-email.me>
	<5aefc0d0b454a230e721a8cdb8400cb25ea9a8c1@i2pn2.org>
	<vonqus$3hu2d$1@dont-email.me>
	<f220383b9803059a387c34e198906c7729101311@i2pn2.org>
	<vopv2h$s46$2@dont-email.me>
	<340761ab1ceb68741d949331a0c64a3d6d5fa237@i2pn2.org>
	<vosf9f$hjfh$4@dont-email.me>
	<e65f39b64ea4a5bb0fd1b8d214fbf99c4a5a0b23@i2pn2.org>
	<vot6hr$lfa0$3@dont-email.me>
	<5fccdbd91a997aadcfde3843cdc09e3fe7f515cf@i2pn2.org>
	<vp02ic$188u3$1@dont-email.me>
	<ffff63c4-18ef-4093-a262-88a6ffe2bac1@att.net>
	<vp1hra$1k723$1@dont-email.me>
	<1342dbd5-9c48-4a54-953a-5c5f633c0410@att.net> <vp4qum$fe2d$1@solani.org>
	<987c5039-aed9-48b0-ba3f-8058229f4e02@att.net>
	<vp7q12$2tofq$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 20:13:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="988962"; 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: 2476
Lines: 13

Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:50:27 +0100 schrieb WM:
> On 20.02.2025 15:30, Jim Burns wrote:
> 
>> AXIOM I 'extensionality' means proving each FISON is omissible  is no
>> proving {F} is omissible.
> ∀n ∈ ℕ: n+1 ∈ ℕ. Together with 1 ∈ ℕ this defines the set ℕ. (*)
> Addition of all numbers defined by (*) to the empty set is tantamount to
> addition of ℕ to the empty set.
Absolutely not. That would be {N}, which is not equal to N = {1, 2, 
3, ...}. It would be equal to the addition *of the elements*.

-- 
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.