Path: news.eternal-september.org!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, 11 Mar 2025 11:00:05 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <81fb12a8d891994f7dff3df3a5f2a86565212c68@i2pn2.org> References: <8e7b322e-1259-4563-b2d5-37983249a397@att.net> <4ae7b6d4-49a9-47ba-b2ac-c77238e93545@att.net> <60614d74-cf15-4e8e-8390-f8861bff44f9@att.net> <76d99693-1dcf-4049-98b9-a33edced2e83@att.net> <123fb080-4f72-482c-a6e9-aa525aa7150b@att.net> <00fb52fc-ca18-4166-90c7-71b5a66e2dda@att.net> <682d08268062949c28daa5e48fd4823c1b1af4fd@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:00:05 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3862814"; 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 Am Mon, 10 Mar 2025 16:20:58 +0100 schrieb WM: > On 10.03.2025 09:30, joes wrote: >> Am Sun, 09 Mar 2025 20:13:53 +0100 schrieb WM: > >>> I am interested in the difference that you see between >>> Z₀ defined by { } ∈ Z₀, and if {{{...{{{ }}}...}}} with n curly >>> brackets ∈ Z₀ then {{{...{{{ }}}...}}} with n+1 curly brackets ∈ Z₀ >>> and >>> The set of FISONs failing to have the union ℕ defied by induction: >>> |ℕ \ {1}| = ℵo, and if |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo then |ℕ \ {1, 2, >>> 3, ..., n+1}| = ℵo. >> >> How you can view the first set not to have the same union (by Neumann's >> equivalence) as the the second one would be most welcome. In any case, >> the second set does not exist according to your contradictory specifi- >> cation. They are clearly isomorphic. > > That is no my opinion but Jim Burns' opinion. > Both sets are identical. Both are potentially infinite collections. No, they are not finite. You can't believe Z_0 to be "complete" in your sense if you don't think the second set is (and accept that they are equivalent). -- 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.