Discussion:
The set of necessary FISONs
Add Reply
WM
2025-01-21 11:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
All finite initial segments of natural numbers, FISONs F(n) = {1, 2, 3,
..., n} as well as their union are less than the set ℕ of natural numbers.

Proof: Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What is the
first necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped. But according
to Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of different numbers of the
first and the second number class has a smallest number, a minimum. This
proves that the set of indices n of necessary F(n), by not having a
first element, is empty.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-21 12:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
All finite initial segments of natural numbers, FISONs F(n) = {1, 2,
3, ..., n} as well as their union are less than the set ℕ of natural
numbers.
Proof: Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What is the
first necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped. But according
to Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of different numbers of the
first and the second number class has a smallest number, a minimum. This
proves that the set of indices n of necessary F(n), by not having a
first element, is empty.
Regards, WM
Which is a proof of ANY, not ALL together,

Your logic just can't handle that infinite set, so comes up with
illogical answers.

Your logic is based on the proven incorrect Naive Set Theory, not any of
the modern set theories that fixed it.
WM
2025-01-21 12:44:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
All finite initial segments of natural numbers, FISONs F(n) = {1, 2,
3, ..., n} as well as their union are less than the set ℕ of natural
numbers.
Proof: Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What is
the first necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped. But
according to Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of different
numbers of the first and the second number class has a smallest
number, a minimum. This proves that the set of indices n of necessary
F(n), by not having a first element, is empty.
Which is a proof of ANY, not ALL together,
It is a proof of not any. The proof that not all together are necessary
is this: U{F(1), F(2), F(3), ...} = U{F(2), F(3), F(4), ...}.

Regards, WM
Python
2025-01-22 18:01:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
All finite initial segments of natural numbers, FISONs F(n) = {1,
2, 3, ..., n} as well as their union are less than the set ℕ of
natural numbers.
Proof: Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What
is the first necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped.
But according to Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of
different numbers of the first and the second number class has a
smallest number, a minimum. This proves that the set of indices n
of necessary F(n), by not having a first element, is empty.
Which is a proof of ANY, not ALL together,
It is a proof of not any. The proof that not all together are
necessary is this: U{F(1), F(2), F(3), ...} = U{F(2), F(3), F(4), ...}.
which doesn't prove your claim about the Natural Numbers.
It proves what I said: not all are required.
And no one said you needed to take the Union of ALL the FISONs, just ALL
of an infinite set of FISONs.
Can't you read?
Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What is the first
necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped. But according to
Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of different numbers of the
first and the second number class has a smallest number, a minimum. This
proves that the set of indices n of necessary F(n), by not having a
first element, is empty.
Regards, WM
Idiot ! Being "necessary" in an union of sets is not a property of a given
element. It is a property of a subset.

As well in the finite as the infinite number.

If you have three coins of 2 euros not a single one is "necessary" to pay
a 3 euros drink (as you can use only the two others). You cannot conclude
that then no coin at all is necessary and that you can leave honestly with
your three coins still in your wallet.

Try your "argument" in Augsburg once, please. As you deserve a punch in
the face, you would then get one, crank Wolfgang Mückenheim, from
Hochschule Augsburg.
Richard Damon
2025-01-21 23:41:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
All finite initial segments of natural numbers, FISONs F(n) = {1, 2,
3, ..., n} as well as their union are less than the set ℕ of natural
numbers.
Proof: Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What is
the first necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped. But
according to Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of different
numbers of the first and the second number class has a smallest
number, a minimum. This proves that the set of indices n of necessary
F(n), by not having a first element, is empty.
Which is a proof of ANY, not ALL together,
It is a proof of not any. The proof that not all together are necessary
is this: U{F(1), F(2), F(3), ...} = U{F(2), F(3), F(4), ...}.
Regards, WM
which doesn't prove your claim about the Natural Numbers.

You keep on diverting to your strawmen when you get caught.

Yes, no finite set is infinite.

No union of a finite number of finite sets is infinite.

But this doesn't say that the infinite doesn't exist, and that we can't
make the Natural Numbers from a union of an infinite set of FISONs.

And, because FISONs are finite, no less than an infinite number of them
should be expected to be needed.

This doesn't mean we need ALL of them, just an infinite number of them.

Your claims are just proven to be your lies.
Richard Damon
2025-01-23 12:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
All finite initial segments of natural numbers, FISONs F(n) = {1,
2, 3, ..., n} as well as their union are less than the set ℕ of
natural numbers.
Proof: Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What
is the first necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped.
But according to Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of
different numbers of the first and the second number class has a
smallest number, a minimum. This proves that the set of indices n
of necessary F(n), by not having a first element, is empty.
Which is a proof of ANY, not ALL together,
It is a proof of not any. The proof that not all together are
necessary is this: U{F(1), F(2), F(3), ...} = U{F(2), F(3),
F(4), ...}.
which doesn't prove your claim about the Natural Numbers.
It proves what I said: not all are required.
And no one said you needed to take the Union of ALL the FISONs, just
ALL of an infinite set of FISONs.
Can't you read?
Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What is the first
necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped. But according to
Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of different numbers of the
first and the second number class has a smallest number, a minimum. This
proves that the set of indices n of necessary F(n), by not having a
first element, is empty.
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.

Your question abourt the "first" necessary fission is an invalid
nquestion, as it is the same as asking for the highest Natural Number,
which doesn't exist,

Your "logic" is just built on the presumption that you can ask illogical
questions and assume an answer, that is the flaw of "Naive" Set Theory,
and your "Naive" logic, and "Naive" mathematics.

Your ignorance thinks that the infinite is finite, just bigger than you
thought of, which just shows your stupidity, and that you are too stupid
to know your stupidity,
Regards, WM
WM
2025-01-24 09:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
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. That is mathematics.
Post by Richard Damon
Your question about the "first" necessary fission is an invalid
question, as it is the same as asking for the highest Natural Number,
which doesn't exist,
No, it is not. But there are only invalid handwaving answers.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-24 12:29:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
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. That is mathematics.
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.

Can you show the first number in N that can't be part of a FISON?

You logic presumes that, and thus is incorrect.
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Your question about the "first" necessary fission is an invalid
question, as it is the same as asking for the highest Natural Number,
which doesn't exist,
No, it is not. But there are only invalid handwaving answers.
Then what is the a number that you can't cover? That answer would imply
a highest visible FISON, and thus a highest visible Natural Number, but
then why can't we see the number just after it?

Beecause your sets just don't work, and violate the law that sets are
unchanging,

Sorry, but your stupidity is amazing, and so big you can't even see it
yourself.

Part of your problem, is your logic is based on broken logic, like Naive
Set Theory was, Your "Set of Necessary FISONs" is a set built by Naive
Set Theory, and thus shows your logic is just broken, but because you
belive in your broken logic, you can't see the errors in your logic.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2025-01-25 11:09:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
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. That is mathematics.
Sure it does,
Give the first.
Post by Richard Damon
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.

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-25 13:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
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.
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
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.
--
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.
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-25 20:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
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.
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
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.
WM
2025-01-26 09:42:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
What the FUCK that makes NO sense.
WOW!
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...

Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-26 10:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
What the FUCK that makes NO sense.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
No. There are infinitely many rows.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-26 12:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
No.
Crank!

Regards, WM
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-27 23:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
No.
Crank!
Huh?
______________
0 = { 1 }
1 = { 1, 2 }
2 = { 1, 2, 3 }
3 = { 1, 2, 3, 4 }
...
______________

there are infinity many rows... Heck they are even indexed here by the
unsigned integers. Starting at array index 0. Let's start at one:
______________
1 = { 1 }
2 = { 1, 2 }
3 = { 1, 2, 3 }
4 = { 1, 2, 3, 4 }
...
______________

Okay, well, what about this? lol.
______________
0 = { } // empty... can it be { 0 } ? lol.
1 = { 1, 2 }
2 = { 1, 2, 3 }
3 = { 1, 2, 3, 4 }
...
______________


Humm... It makes me think of a 2-ary tree:
______________
0
/ \
/ \
/ \
1 2
/ \ / \
.............
______________

The next level would be the children of 1 and 2:

children of 1 = (3, 4)
children of 2 = (5, 6)

?


The root is zero? Fair enough?
FromTheRafters
2025-01-26 12:54:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
What the FUCK that makes NO sense.
WOW!
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
Those are not FISONs.
WM
2025-01-26 14:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
What the FUCK that makes NO sense.
WOW!
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
Those are not FISONs.
Of course they are. The order is irrelevant within sets.

Regards, WM
FromTheRafters
2025-01-26 19:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
What the FUCK that makes NO sense.
WOW!
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
Those are not FISONs.
Of course they are.
No they are not.
Post by WM
The order is irrelevant within sets.
Sure, but the 'S' in FISON stands for segment, not set, and ordinals
have order and are constructed non-arbitrarily.
WM
2025-01-27 11:22:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Sure, but the 'S' in FISON stands for segment, not set, and ordinals
have order and are constructed non-arbitrarily.
A segment written as a set has no order. Only the elements are fixed.

Regards, WM
FromTheRafters
2025-01-27 12:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Sure, but the 'S' in FISON stands for segment, not set, and ordinals have
order and are constructed non-arbitrarily.
A segment written as a set has no order.
Then it is not a FISON.

Google's AI says: (and everyone's gonna love this one)

=====================================================
AI Overview

FISONs are a sequence of numbers that prove dark natural numbers. Each
FISON ends with a natural number, and every finite union of FISONs is
also a FISON.

Explanation

FISONs: A sequence of numbers that prove dark natural numbers.
Dark natural numbers: Proved by the sequence of FISONs.
Natural number: A number that ends a FISON.
Finite union: A union of FISONs that is also a FISON.

Example

The sequence of FISONs can be represented as {1}, {1, 2}, {1, 2,
3}, and so on.
Each FISON ends with a natural number, such as 1, 2, or 3.
Every finite union of FISONs is also a FISON, such as {1} » {1, 2}
= {1, 2}.

Dark numbers
Dark natural numbers proved by the sequence of FISONs ... actual
infinity exchanges quantifiers and states $ع "Fn: |Fn| < |ع| ⁄ Fn...
Technische Hochschule Augsburg

Generative AI is experimental.
WM
2025-01-27 13:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by WM
Post by FromTheRafters
Sure, but the 'S' in FISON stands for segment, not set, and ordinals
have order and are constructed non-arbitrarily.
A segment written as a set has no order.
Then it is not a FISON.
Nevertheless it has the same set of elements. Only that is relevant for
my argument.
Post by FromTheRafters
Google's AI says: (and everyone's gonna love this one)
=====================================================
AI Overview
FISONs are a sequence of numbers that prove dark natural numbers. Each
FISON ends with a natural number, and every finite union of FISONs is
also a FISON.
Explanation
   FISONs: A sequence of numbers that prove dark natural numbers.
   Dark natural numbers: Proved by the sequence of FISONs.
   Natural number: A number that ends a FISON.
   Finite union: A union of FISONs that is also a FISON.
Example
   The sequence of FISONs can be represented as {1}, {1, 2}, {1, 2, 3},
and so on.
   Each FISON ends with a natural number, such as 1, 2, or 3.
   Every finite union of FISONs is also a FISON, such as {1} » {1, 2} =
{1, 2}.
   Dark numbers
   Dark natural numbers proved by the sequence of FISONs ... actual
infinity exchanges quantifiers and states $ع "Fn: |Fn| < |ع| ⁄ Fn...
   Technische Hochschule Augsburg
The latter is not readable.

Regards, WM
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-27 23:41:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by WM
Post by FromTheRafters
Sure, but the 'S' in FISON stands for segment, not set, and ordinals
have order and are constructed non-arbitrarily.
A segment written as a set has no order.
Then it is not a FISON.
Google's AI says: (and everyone's gonna love this one)
=====================================================
AI Overview
FISONs are a sequence of numbers that prove dark natural numbers. Each
FISON ends with a natural number, and every finite union of FISONs is
also a FISON.
HUH? Really? I must be missing something vital here! ;^)
Post by FromTheRafters
Explanation
   FISONs: A sequence of numbers that prove dark natural numbers.
   Dark natural numbers: Proved by the sequence of FISONs.
   Natural number: A number that ends a FISON.
   Finite union: A union of FISONs that is also a FISON.
Example
   The sequence of FISONs can be represented as {1}, {1, 2}, {1, 2, 3},
and so on.
   Each FISON ends with a natural number, such as 1, 2, or 3.
   Every finite union of FISONs is also a FISON, such as {1} » {1, 2} =
{1, 2}.
   Dark numbers
   Dark natural numbers proved by the sequence of FISONs ... actual
infinity exchanges quantifiers and states $ع "Fn: |Fn| < |ع| ⁄ Fn...
   Technische Hochschule Augsburg
Generative AI is experimental.
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-26 20:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
What the FUCK that makes NO sense.
WOW!
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
As you take this to infinity, your rows become infinite... ;^)
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-26 20:37:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
What the FUCK that makes NO sense.
WOW!
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
As you take this to infinity, your rows become infinite... ;^)
think of:

1, 2, 3, ...

As we take this to infinity the number of natural numbers is infinite.
For they are as they are. They are all there all at once... :^)
WM
2025-01-27 11:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
As you take this to infinity, your rows become infinite... ;^)
No. FISONs are finite. The infinite is completed by the succeeding
numbers: ∀n ∈ ℕ_def: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-27 12:50:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
As you take this to infinity, your rows become infinite... ;^)
No. FISONs are finite. The infinite is completed by the succeeding
numbers: ∀n ∈ ℕ_def: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
Regards, WM
But there are an infinite number of them, so we can ask if they become
something in the limit to infinity.

All you are showing is that you don't understand what a limit is, how
logic works, or the difference between finite and infinite things.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity, and that you are so stupid
you can't understand your own stupidity.
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-27 23:33:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Post by Chris M. Thomasson
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
Can you see that the first column is not longer than all finite rows?
As you take this to infinity, your rows become infinite... ;^)
No. FISONs are finite. The infinite is completed by the succeeding
numbers: ∀n ∈ ℕ_def: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
Regards, WM
But there are an infinite number of them, so we can ask if they become
something in the limit to infinity.
Actually, it still kind of bends my mind to think of the (actual
infinity, note to WM) of the naturals wrt to a limit that is outside of
them. This limit is not a natural number... An "outside" limit to an
unbounded infinity is interesting.
Post by Richard Damon
All you are showing is that you don't understand what a limit is, how
logic works, or the difference between finite and infinite things.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity, and that you are so stupid
you can't understand your own stupidity.
WM
2025-01-26 08:43:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
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.
Cantor's theorem concerns also infinite sets. Without a first element
the set is empty.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 12:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
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.
Cantor's theorem concerns also infinite sets. Without a first element
the set is empty.
Regards, WM
No, without a first element, the set doesn't exist.

Your "Set of Necessay FISONs" doesn't exist in anythin working set
theory, just your Naive Set theory that has exploded your brain into
smithereens from its inconsistancies.
WM
2025-01-26 14:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
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.
Cantor's theorem concerns also infinite sets. Without a first element
the set is empty.
No, without a first element, the set doesn't exist.
That is the same.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 22:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
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.
Cantor's theorem concerns also infinite sets. Without a first element
the set is empty.
No, without a first element, the set doesn't exist.
That is the same.
Regards, WM
Nope. a set not existing is VERY different then the set being an empty set.

The empty set is very specifically a certain set, while a set not
existing is something very different.

I guess you are just showing how broken your logic is.

In fact, in the classical set theoretical development of Mathematics,
the empty set maps to the number Zero.

Then 1 is the set that contains as its only member the empty set. (which
is something different then the empty set itself).

It seems you logic just can't understand how such sets actually work.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
Richard Damon
2025-01-25 14:16:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
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. That is mathematics.
Sure it does,
Give the first.
You prove your ineptitude by your lying,

I said:
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.

Thus, the "Sure it does" Means, the union of all FISONs does cover N.
There need no be a specific first, as we are allowed to drop any finite
set of the FISONs,
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
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.
Then, what is the highest FISON?

If there is only a finite number of them, THEN there is a maximum.

Your own words prove your logic is broken, and you don't undetstand how
finite and infinite work.

FISONs may enumerate themselves individually, but don't enumerate the
full set of FISONs.

You are just proving you are too stupid to understand what you are
talking, and too stupid to understand that misunderstanding.

Sorry, your brain is just a black hole of mushing logic from being blown
to smithereens by the inconsistencies of your logic.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-26 10:50:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
But that is impossible because there are not two consecutive actually
infinite sets in ℕ. Since every FISON is followed by an actually
infinite set, ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo, there is no
actually infinite set of FISONs.
Yes there is. There are no consecutive infinities. Every FISON is,
of course, finite. There is nothing that follows upon ALL of the
segments; every segment follows another. The set of them has no
follower. The set of successors of one FISON is infinite, and the
set of those is in turn infinite.
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
Then, what is the highest FISON?
That depends on the system. All we know is that it is finite.
The „system” of mathematics knows inf. many.
Post by Richard Damon
If there is only a finite number of them, THEN there is a maximum
A variable maximum, "something becoming, emerging, produced, i.e., as we
put it, the potential infinite." [Hilbert]
Therefore, not a finite number of FISONs.
--
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.
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 12:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
But that is impossible because there are not two consecutive actually
infinite sets in ℕ. Since every FISON is followed by an actually
infinite set, ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo, there is no
actually infinite set of FISONs.
Why do we need "consecutive" infinite sets, The set of FISONs we are
taking the union of are just an infinite subset of the infinite set of
FISONs.
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
Then, what is the highest FISON?
That depends on the system. All we know is that it is finite.
No, it doesn't exist.

A logic that says it exists as a finite is just WRONG, as you are,
Post by Richard Damon
If there is only a finite number of them, THEN there is a maximum
A variable maximum, "something becoming, emerging, produced, i.e., as we
put it, the potential infinite." [Hilbert]
Which is about KNOWLEDGE, not the actual existance.

One view of "Potential Infinity" is looking at it as the limit of an
infinite sequence of finite sets (none of which ARE the infinite set).

that "variable maximum" is about the composition of the members of that
infinite sequence we are looking at.
Regards, WM
WM
2025-01-26 14:28:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
But that is impossible because there are not two consecutive actually
infinite sets in ℕ. Since every FISON is followed by an actually
infinite set, ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo, there is no
actually infinite set of FISONs.
Why do we need "consecutive" infinite sets,
They would not exist even if they were needed.
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
Then, what is the highest FISON?
That depends on the system. All we know is that it is finite.
No, it doesn't exist.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...

The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
If there is only a finite number of them, THEN there is a maximum
A variable maximum, "something becoming, emerging, produced, i.e., as
we put it, the potential infinite." [Hilbert]
Which is about KNOWLEDGE, not the actual existance.
FISONs are about knowledge.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 22:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
But that is impossible because there are not two consecutive actually
infinite sets in ℕ. Since every FISON is followed by an actually
infinite set, ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo, there is no
actually infinite set of FISONs.
Why do we need "consecutive" infinite sets,
They would not exist even if they were needed.
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence
no infinite number of them.
Then, what is the highest FISON?
That depends on the system. All we know is that it is finite.
No, it doesn't exist.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Sure it does, when you COMPLETE the process in infinity.

Of course, your logic can't complete the action, so can't actually have
an infinite set, and thus can't process one.
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
If there is only a finite number of them, THEN there is a maximum
A variable maximum, "something becoming, emerging, produced, i.e., as
we put it, the potential infinite." [Hilbert]
Which is about KNOWLEDGE, not the actual existance.
FISONs are about knowledge.
So, you agree that they don't tell you about the actual existance of the
number, just what you can know about them.

At best, you are proving that with your logic, you can't know the full
properties of infinite sets, as thus LIE when you make statements about
such things.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2025-01-27 11:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Sure it does,
Finite Initial Segments Of Natural numbers remain finite by definition.
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs are about knowledge.
So, you agree that they don't tell you about the actual existance of the
number, just what you can know about them.
FISONs are about knowledge. ℕ is about all.
∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }

Regards, WM
FromTheRafters
2025-01-27 12:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Sure it does,
Finite Initial Segments Of Natural numbers remain finite by definition.
They also have the natural order of the natural numbers.
FromTheRafters
2025-01-27 12:31:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Sure it does,
Finite Initial Segments Of Natural numbers remain finite by definition.
They also have the natural order of the natural numbers. Even you apparently
say so.
See "Ordered "sequence" below.

From Google's AI:
====================================================
AI Overview

In set theory, a "FISON" stands for "Finite Initial Segment Of Natural
Numbers" - it refers to a set containing the first 'n' natural numbers
(1, 2, 3, ..., n) where 'n' is any finite positive integer;
essentially, a small, finite subset of the set of all natural numbers.

Key points about FISONs:

Finite nature:
A FISON is always a finite set, meaning it has a limited number of
elements.
Ordered sequence:
The elements within a FISON are always listed in their natural
order (from 1 to n).
Example:
The set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} is a FISON, representing the first five
natural numbers.

Use in mathematical concepts:

Induction proofs: FISONs are often used in mathematical induction
proofs where you need to demonstrate a property holds for all natural
numbers by showing it holds for the first element, then assuming it
holds for any element 'n' and proving it holds for 'n+1'.

Dark numbers
Dark natural numbers proved by the sequence of FISONs According to
set theory the set ع of all natural numbers is actually infinit...
Technische Hochschule Augsburg

Generative AI is experimental.
=========================================================

Technische Hochschule Augsburg is polluting Google's AI. It makes me
wonder what either entity thinks about that. :)
Richard Damon
2025-01-27 12:50:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Sure it does,
Finite Initial Segments Of Natural numbers remain finite by definition.
But ... doesn't limit to a finite sequence, and thus become the full set
of Natural Numbers, which is bigger than any FISON.

Thus, you are proving your stupidity,
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs are about knowledge.
So, you agree that they don't tell you about the actual existance of
the number, just what you can know about them.
FISONs are about knowledge. ℕ is about all.
∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }
Right, so your claim that the set {1, 2, 3, ...} isn't bigger than a
FISON just proves you don't know what you are talking about.

That *IS* an infinite set, and thus bigger than a FISON.

{ 1, 2, 3, 4, ... } is the sequence with no end.

{ 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n } while using more characters, is the description
of a SHORTED sequence, as it has a definite end.

All you are doing is proving your stupidity,

It is clear that you don't understand what your words actually mean, and
you mind is just seeing darkness as if it just a big black hole that can
only let stupidity out, not knowledge.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
Chris M. Thomasson
2025-01-27 23:45:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
But that is impossible because there are not two consecutive
actually infinite sets in ℕ. Since every FISON is followed by an
actually infinite set, ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo,
there is no actually infinite set of FISONs.
Why do we need "consecutive" infinite sets,
They would not exist even if they were needed.
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence
no infinite number of them.
Then, what is the highest FISON?
That depends on the system. All we know is that it is finite.
No, it doesn't exist.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Sure it does, when you COMPLETE the process in infinity.
For some reason I think of completing infinity simply by writing this:

Say:

N = all of the natural numbers


So, N is completed. It's all of them. Now, why does WM seem to think
that saying completed implies a largest natural number?
Post by Richard Damon
Of course, your logic can't complete the action, so can't actually have
an infinite set, and thus can't process one.
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
If there is only a finite number of them, THEN there is a maximum
A variable maximum, "something becoming, emerging, produced, i.e.,
as we put it, the potential infinite." [Hilbert]
Which is about KNOWLEDGE, not the actual existance.
FISONs are about knowledge.
So, you agree that they don't tell you about the actual existance of the
number, just what you can know about them.
At best, you are proving that with your logic, you can't know the full
properties of infinite sets, as thus LIE when you make statements about
such things.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-27 17:30:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
But that is impossible because there are not two consecutive actually
infinite sets in ℕ. Since every FISON is followed by an actually
infinite set, ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo, there is no
actually infinite set of FISONs.
Quantifier shift: yes, every FISON, but the successor of the SET of all
FISONs isn’t even defined.
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
Then, what is the highest FISON?
That depends on the system. All we know is that it is finite.
No, it doesn't exist.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Neither does it stop.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-28 09:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Neither does it stop.
True. It evolves between finite and ℕ. A variable maximum, "something
becoming, emerging, produced, i.e., as we put it, the potential
infinite." [Hilbert]

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-28 09:17:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The first column never gets larger than a FISON.
Neither does it stop.
True. It evolves between finite and ℕ. A variable maximum, "something
becoming, emerging, produced, i.e., as we put it, the potential
infinite." [Hilbert]
My mistake. It doesn’t „get” or „evolve”, it just is - infinitely long.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-26 08:51:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Sure it does, you just need to take the union of an infinite number of them.
But that is impossible because there are not two consecutive actually
infinite sets in ℕ. Since every FISON is followed by an actually
infinite set, ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo, there is no
actually infinite set of FISONs.
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
FISONs enumerate themselves. There is no infinite FISON and hence no
infinite number of them.
Then, what is the highest FISON?
That depends on the system. All we know is that it is finite.
Post by Richard Damon
If there is only a finite number of them, THEN there is a maximum
A variable maximum, "something becoming, emerging, produced, i.e., as we
put it, the potential infinite." [Hilbert]

Regards, WM
Jim Burns
2025-01-21 20:35:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
All finite initial segments of natural numbers,
FISONs F(n) = {1, 2, 3, ..., n}
as well as their union
are less than the set ℕ of natural numbers.
Natural numbers are finite ordinals.

The finites extend infinitely further
than you (WM) think they extend.

Only for a finite set,
fuller.by.one sets are larger and
emptier.by.one sets are smaller.

For each finite set, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it,
and that FISON subsets ℕ

For ℕ
there is no FISON larger than it
therefore,
ℕ isn't finite,
therefore,
for ℕ
fuller.by.one sets are NOT larger and
emptier.by.one sets are NOT smaller.
Post by WM
Assume UF(n) = ℕ.
The small FISONs are not necessary.
What is the first necessary FISON?
There is none!
For each finite set, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it.

For each (finite) FISON, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it,
and it can be dropped.
Post by WM
All can be dropped.
Each is not all.
Each can be dropped.
All cannot be dropped.
Post by WM
But according to Cantor's Theorem B,
every non-empty set of different numbers of
the first and the second number class
has a smallest number, a minimum.
This proves that
the set of indices n of necessary F(n),
by not having a first element,
is empty.
ℕ = ⋃{FISON}

∀F ∈ {FISON}:
∃F′ ∈ {FISON}:
F′ = F+1 := F∪{1+max.F}
F ≠⊂ F′

∀F ∈ {FISON}:
⋃{F+1,F} = ⋃({F+1,F}\{F})
⋃{FISON} = ⋃({FISON}\{F})
Each F is unnecessary to ⋃{FISON}

{unnecessary.FISON} = {FISON}

∀F ∈ {unnecessary.FISON}:
∃F′ ∈ {unnecessary.FISON}:
F′ = F+1 := F∪{1+max.F}
F ≠⊂ F′

∀F ∈ {unnecessary.FISON}:
⋃{unnecessary.FISON} = ⋃{{unnecessary.FISON}\{F})
Each F is unnecessary to ⋃{unnecessary.FISON}

{unnecessary.unnecessary.FISON} = {unnecessary.FISON}

----
For each unnecessary.FISON F
there is an unnecessary.FISON.swap F⇄F+1
from F to (unnecessary) F+1
They can be ordered such that
F⇄F+1 precedes F₂⇄F₂+1 ⇔ F ≠⊂ F₂

For each unnecessary.FISON.swap F-1⇄F
into F, there is
a later unnecessary.FISON.swap F⇄F+1
out of F

Consider Bob such that,
before all FISON.swaps,
Bob is in the first FISON ℕ

If Bob is in FISON F
it is after F-1⇄F and before F⇄F+1

If it is after all unnecessary.FISON.swaps
then Bob is not.in any FISON,
even though
no unnecessary.FISON.swaps take Bob
anywhere else.

KING BOB!!!

WM
2025-01-22 10:29:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Burns
For each finite set, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it,
and that FISON subsets ℕ
It is a proper subset and therefore not necessary but completely useless
in the union.
Post by Jim Burns
For each finite set, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it.
That means the set is potentially infinite.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
All can be dropped.
Each is not all.
All consists of each and not more.
Post by Jim Burns
Each can be dropped.
All cannot be dropped.
If you were right, there would be a first FISON required according to
Cantor's theorem.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
But according to Cantor's Theorem B,
every non-empty set of different numbers of
the first and the second number class
has a smallest number, a minimum.
This proves that
the set of indices n of necessary F(n),
by not having a first element,
is empty.
ℕ = ⋃{FISON}
Contradicted by mathematics, namely Cantor's theorem.

Regards, wM
Jim Burns
2025-01-22 17:17:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
[...]
For each finite set, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it,
and that FISON subsets ℕ
For each (finite) FISON, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it,
and that larger FISON subsets ℕ
Post by WM
It is a proper subset
For each (finite) FISON, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it,
and
it is a proper subset of that larger FISON,
which is a proper subset of ℕ
Post by WM
and therefore not necessary
but completely useless in the union.
For each FISON,
each natural number in it
is also in a later, fuller.by.one, and larger FISON,
and
is not dropped by dropping that (earlier) FISON.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
For each finite set, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it.
That means the set is potentially infinite.
For only each finite set, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it.

For only each finite set,
emptier.by.one sets are smaller and
fuller.by.one sets are larger.

For the union of all (finite) FISONs,
there isn't any
(finite) FISON larger than it.

The union of all (finite) FISONs is not finite.

For the union of all (FINITE) FISONs,
emptier.by.one sets are NOT smaller and
fuller.by.one sets are NOT larger.


For two sets which no FISON is larger than and
which differ only by Bob in one and not the other,
they are NOT sets such that
emptier.by.one sets are smaller and
fuller.by.one sets are larger.

Therefore,
each larger.than.any.finite Bob.different set
is not smaller or larger than
the other larger.than.any.finite Bob.different set.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
All can be dropped.
Each is not all.
All consists of each and not more.
Anything which is a finite ordinal
is in the set of all finite ordinals.

Anything which is not a finite ordinal
is not in the set of all finite ordinals.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Each can be dropped.
All cannot be dropped.
If you were right,
there would be a first FISON required
according to Cantor's theorem.
According to Cantor's theorem,
the opposite of your claim.

Each can be dropped.
The set {required.FISON} of all required FISONs F
such that U{FISON} ≠ ⋃({FISON}\{F})
is empty.
There is no first FISON in {required.FISON} = {}

The set {FISON} of FISONs is not a FISON.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
But according to Cantor's Theorem B,
every non-empty set of different numbers of
the first and the second number class
has a smallest number, a minimum.
This proves that
the set of indices n of necessary F(n),
by not having a first element,
is empty.
ℕ = ⋃{FISON}
Contradicted by mathematics,
namely Cantor's theorem.
WM
2025-01-23 08:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Burns
For each (finite) FISON, there is
a (finite) FISON larger than it,
and
it is a proper subset of that larger FISON,
which is a proper subset of ℕ
Right. The sequence of FISONs is potentially infinite. For each FISON
F(n) there exists F(n^n^n).
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
and therefore not necessary
but completely useless in the union.
For each FISON,
each natural number in it
is also in a later, fuller.by.one, and larger FISON,
and
is not dropped by dropping that (earlier) FISON.
Right.
Post by Jim Burns
For the union of all (finite) FISONs,
there isn't any
(finite) FISON larger than it.
There is no constant "all" in potential infinity.
Post by Jim Burns
The union of all (finite) FISONs is not finite.
Anyhow there is no set of FISONs the union of which would be ℕ.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Each can be dropped.
All cannot be dropped.
"All" is not more than the repeated "each". If all could not be dropped,
then there was a first FISON that could not be dropped. However, none of
the following FISONs is useful or necessary:
∀n ∈ ℕ: |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
But according to Cantor's Theorem B,
every non-empty set of different numbers of
the first and the second number class
has a smallest number, a minimum.
This proves that
the set of indices n of necessary F(n),
by not having a first element,
is empty.
ℕ = ⋃{FISON}
Contradicted by mathematics,
namely Cantor's theorem.
Regards, WM
WM
2025-01-24 09:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
ℕ is a superset of each FISON
Each set which is a superset of each FISON
 is a superset of ℕ
Wrong.
That's a longer.winded way to say that
ℕ is the union of all FISONs
The union of all FISONs does not cover ℕ. Otherwise Cantor's theorem
would require the existence of a first necessary FISON.
Each FISON is a proper subset of ℕ
Each FISON is not ℕ
Therefore each FISON can be dropped from the set of candidates. Nothing
remains.
Post by WM
"All" is not more than the repeated "each".
'All' is complete,
whatever you (WM) mean by 'complete'.
From the finite.length description of a FISON,
we know that up to a FISON
is not complete, is not all.
Up to every FISON |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo. Since every FISON is the
union of all its predecessors we get
F(n): |ℕ \ UF(n)| = ℵo.
If you don't believe in the union of all F(n), find the first exception.

Regards, WM
Jim Burns
2025-01-24 15:44:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
ℕ is a superset of each FISON
Each set which is a superset of each FISON
 is a superset of ℕ
3 is the integer between 2 and 4
Post by WM
Wrong.
Both claims are true, for the same reason.
That is the widely.used name for what's described.

As well, both claims are lacking in deeper meaning,
for the same reason. It's only a name.

Say "3 isn't the integer between 2 and 4"
And then, count 1,2,γ,4,...,12,1γ,14,...
and agree to γ+γ=6, γ×γ=9, γ×γ×γ×γ×γ=24γ

Oh! You've renamed 3
Other than your having made noises that _sound_ like
something that could use academic freedom,
there is no 'there' there.

Oh! You've renamed ℕ
Other than your having made noises that _sound_ like
something that could use academic freedom,
there is no 'there' there.

It's your (WM's) 'supercalifragilisticexpialidocious'.


⎛ He traveled all around the world and everywhere he went
⎜ He'd use his word and all would say there goes a clever gent
⎜ When dukes or Maharajas pass the time of day with me
⎜ I say me special word and then they ask me out to tea (woo)

⎜ Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
⎜ Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious
⎜ If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious
⎝ Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Post by WM
That's a longer.winded way to say that
ℕ is the union of all FISONs
The union of all FISONs does not cover ℕ.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

The union of all FISONs covers UF(n)

Each FISON is a proper subset of another FISON.
Each FISON is a proper subset of UF(n)
No FISON is UF(n)

Whatever contains each FISON contains UF(n)
Post by WM
Otherwise Cantor's theorem would require
the existence of a first necessary FISON.
Each FISON is a proper subset of ℕ
Each FISON is not ℕ
Therefore each FISON can be dropped from
the set of candidates.
Candidates for what office? For UF(n) ?
That office must be vacant.
Darkᵂᴹ or visibleᵂᴹ,
each FISON is a proper subset of another FISON.
Post by WM
Nothing remains.
Post by WM
"All" is not more than the repeated "each".
'All' is complete,
whatever you (WM) mean by 'complete'.
 From the finite.length description of a FISON,
we know that up to a FISON
is not complete, is not all.
UF(n) contains each FISON.
No emptier set contains each FISON.
No smaller set contains each FISON.
Post by WM
Up to every FISON
|ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
For any two FISONs {1,2,...,j} {1,2,...,k}
their sum {1,2,...,j,j+1,j+2,...,j+k} is a FISON

UF(n) contains each sum of two FISONs.
No emptier set contains each sum of two FISONs.
No smaller set contains each sum of two FISONs.

UF(n)\{1,2,..,j} contains each {j+1,j+2,...,j+k}
No emptier set contains each {j+1,j+2,...,j+k}
No smaller set contains each {j+1,j+2,...,j+k}
|{j+1,j+2,...,j+k}| = |{1,2,...,k}|

No smaller set contains each FISON.
UF(n)\{1,2,..,j} is not smaller than UF(n)
UF(n)\{1,2,..,j} is not larger than superset UF(n)

|UF(n)\{1,2,...,j}| = |UF(n)|
Post by WM
Since every FISON is
the union of all its predecessors
we get
F(n): |ℕ \ UF(n)| = ℵo.
|UF(n)\UF(n)| = 0

∀{1,2,...j} ≠ UF(n)
|UF(n)\{1,2,...,j}| = |UF(n)|
Post by WM
If you don't believe in
the union of all F(n),
find the first exception.
Any set larger than each FISON
is not smaller than UF(n)
No exceptions.

UF(n) is sufficient to throw out your "logic".

⎛ Consider Bob such that,
⎜ before all FISON.end.swaps n⇄n+1
⎜ Bob is in the first FISON.end 0

⎜ If Bob is in FISON.end n
⎜ then
⎜ it is after n-1⇄n and before n⇄n+1

⎜ If it is after all FISON.end.swaps
⎜ then Bob is not.in any FISON.end,
⎜ even though
⎜ no FISON.end.swap takes Bob
⎝ anywhere else.
WM
2025-01-25 11:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Burns
The union of all FISONs covers UF(n)
Simply contradicted by:
∀n ∈ UF(n): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
Try to find a counter example. Fail.
Post by Jim Burns
Each FISON is a proper subset of another FISON.
Each FISON is a proper subset of UF(n)
No FISON is UF(n)
That is potential infinity.
Post by Jim Burns
Whatever contains each FISON  contains UF(n)
Alas this is not a set but a (potentially in-) finite changing collection.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Otherwise Cantor's theorem would require
the existence of a first necessary FISON.
Do you know Cantors theorem?
Do you accept Cantors theorem:
"Theorem B: Every embodiment of different numbers of the first and the
second number class has a smallest number, a minimum."

Do you agree that or every FISON the question whether it is necessary
can be answered?
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Each FISON is a proper subset of ℕ
Each FISON is not ℕ
Therefore each FISON can be dropped from
the set of candidates.
Candidates for what office? For UF(n) ?
Candidates for the set of FISONs which are necessary to make UF(n) = ℕ.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Up to every FISON
|ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
For any two FISONs {1,2,...,j} {1,2,...,k}
their sum {1,2,...,j,j+1,j+2,...,j+k} is a FISON
Therefore the union cannot be larger than a FISON. The infinite union is
the infinite FISON. But there is no infinite FISON
Post by Jim Burns
⎛ Consider Bob such that,
⎜ before all FISON.end.swaps n⇄n+1
⎜ Bob is in the first FISON.end 0

⎜ If Bob is in FISON.end n
⎜ then
⎜ it is after n-1⇄n and before n⇄n+1

⎜ If it is after all FISON.end.swaps
⎜ then Bob is not.in any FISON.end,
⎜ even though
⎜ no FISON.end.swap takes Bob
⎝ anywhere else.
Swaps cannot eliminate Bob. He remains but i the darkness.

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-25 13:56:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
The union of all FISONs covers UF(n)
∀n ∈ UF(n): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
[assuming UF(n) means {1, 2, ..., n}]
That just says that N is not a single FISON.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Each FISON is a proper subset of another FISON. Each FISON is a proper
subset of UF(n). No FISON is UF(n)
That is potential infinity.
No, it’s just a factual description.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Whatever contains each FISON  contains UF(n)
Alas this is not a set but a (potentially in-) finite changing
collection.
No. Can you not conceive of an infinite set?
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Otherwise Cantor's theorem would require the existence of a first
necessary FISON.
There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
Post by WM
Do you agree that or every FISON the question whether it is necessary
can be answered?
Yes, in the negative. That does not imply the nonexistence of a
sufficient set.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Up to every FISON |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
N is not a FISON.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
For any two FISONs {1,2,...,j} {1,2,...,k} their sum
{1,2,...,j,j+1,j+2,...,j+k} is a FISON
Therefore the union cannot be larger than a FISON.
The union is infinite, since each FISON adds a different number.
Post by WM
The infinite union is the infinite FISON. But there is no infinite FISON
The limit of FISONs is N.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
⎛ Consider Bob such that,
⎜ before all FISON.end.swaps n⇄n+1 ⎜ Bob is in the first FISON.end 0 ⎜
⎜ If Bob is in FISON.end n ⎜ then ⎜ it is after n-1⇄n and before n⇄n+1
⎜ If it is after all FISON.end.swaps ⎜ then Bob is not.in any
FISON.end,
⎜ even though ⎜ no FISON.end.swap takes Bob ⎝ anywhere else.
Swaps cannot eliminate Bob. He remains but i the darkness.
An infinite sequence of swaps may not correspond to a single swap.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-26 08:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
Obviously every union of FISONs is finite, because there are never two
consecutive actually infinite sets in ℕ, and every FISON has an infinite
set as successors.

Obviously every unbion of FISONs is a FISON.
Post by joes
Post by WM
Do you agree that or every FISON the question whether it is necessary
can be answered?
Yes, in the negative. That does not imply the nonexistence of a
sufficient set.
It implies that there is not a first FISON. That proves by induction
that every FISON can be dropped. Your belief is dysfunctional logic.

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-26 09:37:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is finite, because there are never two
consecutive actually infinite sets in ℕ, and every FISON has an infinite
set as successors.
Obviously every* unbion of FISONs is a FISON.
*finite
Every infinite union of FISONs is obviously infinite.
Post by joes
Post by WM
Do you agree that or every FISON the question whether it is necessary
can be answered?
Yes, in the negative. That does not imply the nonexistence of a
sufficient set.
It implies that there is not a first FISON. That proves by induction
that every FISON can be dropped. Your belief is dysfunctional logic.
Yes, every single FISON can be dropped.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-26 09:59:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by joes
There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is finite, because there are never two
consecutive actually infinite sets in ℕ, and every FISON has an infinite
set as successors.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is a FISON.
*finite
Every infinite union of FISONs is obviously infinite.
But no actually infinite set is possible.

{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...

The length of the first column gives the cardinality. It is bounded by
the length of all rows all of which are finite. No actual infinity is
represented by the first column.

Regards, WM
Post by joes
Post by joes
Post by WM
Do you agree that or every FISON the question whether it is necessary
can be answered?
Yes, in the negative. That does not imply the nonexistence of a
sufficient set.
It implies that there is not a first FISON. That proves by induction
that every FISON can be dropped. Your belief is dysfunctional logic.
Yes, every single FISON can be dropped.
joes
2025-01-26 17:55:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is finite, because there are never
two consecutive actually infinite sets in ℕ, and every FISON has an
infinite set as successors.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is a FISON.
*finite Every infinite union of FISONs is obviously infinite.
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
Post by WM
It is bounded by the length of all rows all of which are finite.
No actual infinity is represented by the first column.
The rows are unbounded.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-26 18:08:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is finite, because there are never
two consecutive actually infinite sets in ℕ, and every FISON has an
infinite set as successors.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is a FISON.
*finite Every infinite union of FISONs is obviously infinite.
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
No row is infinite. No column is longer than all rows. All rows and
columns belong to potentially infinite collections.
Post by joes
Post by WM
It is bounded by the length of all rows all of which are finite.
No actual infinity is represented by the first column.
The rows are unbounded.
Right. The columns are unbounded too. With n also n^n^n is contained.
Nevertheless the fixed number ℵo of elements is neither in a row (by
definition) nor in a columns (by symmetry).

Now try to find yourself the solution: What is unbounded but smaller
than the first transfinite quantity?

Regards, WM

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-26 19:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is finite, because there are never
two consecutive actually infinite sets in ℕ, and every FISON has an
infinite set as successors.
Obviously every* union of FISONs is a FISON.
*finite Every infinite union of FISONs is obviously infinite.
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
No row is infinite. No column is longer than all rows. All rows and
columns belong to potentially infinite collections.
All columns are infinite.
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
It is bounded by the length of all rows all of which are finite.
No actual infinity is represented by the first column.
The rows are unbounded.
Right. The columns are unbounded too. With n also n^n^n is contained.
Nevertheless the fixed number ℵo of elements is neither in a row (by
definition) nor in a columns (by symmetry).
What are you getting at?
Post by WM
Now try to find yourself the solution: What is unbounded but smaller
than the first transfinite quantity?
What do you want to derive from the answer that makes this an
interesting question?
--
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.
WM
2025-01-27 11:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
No row is infinite. No column is longer than all rows. All rows and
columns belong to potentially infinite collections.
All columns are infinite.
No column is greater than all rows. All rows are finite. No column is
actually infinite, i.e., has length |ℕ|.

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-27 12:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
No row is infinite. No column is longer than all rows. All rows and
columns belong to potentially infinite collections.
All columns are infinite.
No column is greater than all rows. All rows are finite. No column is
actually infinite, i.e., has length |ℕ|.
That’s just wrong. There are OBVIOUSLY infinitely many rows.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-27 14:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
No row is infinite. No column is longer than all rows. All rows and
columns belong to potentially infinite collections.
All columns are infinite.
No column is greater than all rows. All rows are finite. No column is
actually infinite, i.e., has length |ℕ|.
That’s just wrong. There are OBVIOUSLY infinitely many rows.
Obviously is obviously is not correct.
There are infinitely many rows with infinitely many numbers.
Nevertheless all rows are of length smaller than |ℕ| and therefore by
symmetry also the first column is of length smaller than |ℕ|.

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-27 17:20:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
No row is infinite. No column is longer than all rows. All rows and
columns belong to potentially infinite collections.
All columns are infinite.
No column is greater than all rows. All rows are finite. No column is
actually infinite, i.e., has length |ℕ|.
That’s just wrong. There are OBVIOUSLY infinitely many rows.
Obviously is obviously is not correct.
It is not obvious to me.
Post by WM
There are infinitely many rows with infinitely many numbers.
No. There are infinitely many rows, with finitely many numbers each.
There are inf.many numbers in total, but no infinite row.
Post by WM
Nevertheless all rows are of length smaller than |ℕ| and therefore by
symmetry also the first column is of length smaller than |ℕ|.
What is the symmetry?
--
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.
Richard Damon
2025-01-27 23:29:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
No row is infinite. No column is longer than all rows. All rows and
columns belong to potentially infinite collections.
All columns are infinite.
No column is greater than all rows. All rows are finite. No column is
actually infinite, i.e., has length |ℕ|.
That’s just wrong. There are OBVIOUSLY infinitely many rows.
Obviously is obviously is not correct.
There are infinitely many rows with infinitely many numbers.
Nevertheless all rows are of length smaller than |ℕ| and therefore by
symmetry also the first column is of length smaller than |ℕ|.
Regards, WM
Which is obviously incorrect, as it contains the indicator ... which
mean to continue infinitely.

Yes, each individual row is finite, as it isn't the "last" row, and more
are below it.

The first column is infinite, and continues to infinity.

This is the difference between "Any", and "All".

It just shows your logic is broken and inconsistant.
WM
2025-01-28 09:19:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
There are infinitely many rows with infinitely many numbers.
Nevertheless all rows are of length smaller than |ℕ| and therefore by
symmetry also the first column is of length smaller than |ℕ|.
Which is obviously incorrect, as it contains the indicator ... which
mean to continue infinitely.
To continue is potential infinity.
Post by Richard Damon
Yes, each individual row is finite, as it isn't the "last" row, and more
are below it.
|ℕ| is not reached by FISONs and not by the first column (neither by any
other column).

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-27 12:50:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
But no actually infinite set is possible.
{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...
The length of the first column gives the cardinality.
The length? You gave an infinite list. Every column is infinite.
No row is infinite. No column is longer than all rows. All rows and
columns belong to potentially infinite collections.
All columns are infinite.
No column is greater than all rows. All rows are finite. No column is
actually infinite, i.e., has length |ℕ|.
Regards, WM
No, the columns end in ... which means they go on.

every row ends in 1 }, so if of finite sizxe.

THe fact that you logic can't handle that just shows your error.
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 22:59:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Now try to find yourself the solution: What is unbounded but smaller
than the first transfinite quantity?
Regards, WM
The set of Natural Numbers.

Of course, if can't be a specific number, as that leads to a
contradiction of terms. "unbounded" is a term that applies to series,
meaning it grows without a finite limit.

Of course no finite number is unbounded, but sequences of them can be.

Your "logic" just gets confused between numbers themselves and series
and sets of numbers.
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 12:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
There is obviously no single FISON that is equal to N.
Obviously every union of FISONs is finite, because there are never two
consecutive actually infinite sets in ℕ, and every FISON has an infinite
set as successors.
Obviously every unbion of FISONs is a FISON.
Every union of a FINITE number of FISONs is finite.

The problem is that you then apply that to a union of an INFINITE set of
FISON.
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Do you agree that or every FISON the question whether it is necessary
can be answered?
Yes, in the negative. That does not imply the nonexistence of a
sufficient set.
It implies that there is not a first FISON. That proves by induction
that every FISON can be dropped. Your belief is dysfunctional logic.
No, it implies that the "set of necessary FISONs" doesn't exist.

Only by having the FALSE premise of the existance of such a set, can you
do your induction,

Of course, by that same logic, 1 is equal to 2, and nothing, and
everything is true and false.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2025-01-26 14:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
It implies that there is not a first FISON. That proves by induction
that every FISON can be dropped. Your belief is dysfunctional logic.
No, it implies that the "set of necessary FISONs" doesn't exist.
That means that no first element of Cantor's set exists.
Post by Richard Damon
Only by having the FALSE premise of the existance of such a set, can you
do your induction,
Induction does not need this premise. It only needs a first not
necessary FISON and the conclusion from any FISON to its successor.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 22:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
It implies that there is not a first FISON. That proves by induction
that every FISON can be dropped. Your belief is dysfunctional logic.
No, it implies that the "set of necessary FISONs" doesn't exist.
That means that no first element of Cantor's set exists.
No, because Cantor never talked about the set you are trying to talk about.

Cantor built up the infinite set starting with 0 and adding, as allowed
by set theory.

You are just using broken logic to try to show problems with what he
did, because you don't understand it.
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Only by having the FALSE premise of the existance of such a set, can
you do your induction,
Induction does not need this premise. It only needs a first not
necessary FISON and the conclusion from any FISON to its successor.
Sure it does, you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the
set of necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs
existgs.

You seem to have a whole in your knowledge of Set Theory, a big black
hole cause by the explosion to smithereens of your logic by the
contradictions your Naive logic generate.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
WM
2025-01-27 11:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the
set of necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs
exists.
Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither
necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-27 12:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of
necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs exists.
Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither
necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.
Regards, WM
So?

I guess you don't know what logic is.

You seem to agree that N exists, and then you try to say it can't.

Sorry, your brain is just mush from the explosion to smithereens of your
logic system from all its inconsistancies,
joes
2025-01-27 14:14:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of
necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs exists.
Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither
necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.
Obviously, but not for infinite sets of FISONs.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-27 14:33:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of
necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs exists.
Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither
necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.
Obviously, but not for infinite sets of FISONs.
Also an infinite set needs a first element. But no FISON is necessary or
sufficient.

Regards, WM
FromTheRafters
2025-01-27 15:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of
necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs exists.
Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither
necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.
Obviously, but not for infinite sets of FISONs.
Also an infinite set needs a first element.
The real numbers are an infinite set, which one is first?
WM
2025-01-28 08:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of
necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs exists.
Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither
necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.
Obviously, but not for infinite sets of FISONs.
Also an infinite set needs a first element.
The real numbers are an infinite set, which one is first?
Here we talk about FISONs.

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-27 17:10:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of
necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs exists.
Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither
necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.
Obviously, but not for infinite sets of FISONs.
Also an infinite set needs a first element.
No problem, any infinite set of FISONs has one.
--
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.
WM
2025-01-28 08:58:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
Also an infinite set needs a first element.
No problem, any infinite set of FISONs has one.
But no set of FISONs the union of which is ℕ has a first element. If an
infinite set was existing, you could easily find a first not completely
useless element. Try it!

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-28 09:19:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
Also an infinite set needs a first element.
No problem, any infinite set of FISONs has one.
But no set of FISONs the union of which is ℕ has a first element.
Yes it does. Any infinite set of FISONs has a first element.
Post by WM
If an
infinite set was existing, you could easily find a first not completely
useless element.
No, as you have shown, no element is necessary.
--
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.
Richard Damon
2025-01-27 23:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
you can't show that the first FISON isn't a member of the set of
necessary FISONs without assuming the set of necessary FISONs exists.
Logic? The set ℕ exists. And I can show that every FISON is neither
necessary nor sufficient to accomplish that aim.
Obviously, but not for infinite sets of FISONs.
Also an infinite set needs a first element. But no FISON is necessary or
sufficient.
Regards, WM
Which means the set of "necessary FISONs" doesn't exist.

That doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it just shows your logic is
broken.

we can build an infinite number of infinite sets of FISONs whose union
is the Natural Numbers, that no one particular one is "necessary"
doesn't mean anything, except that the infinite series doesn't have a
"last" elements, but that fact comes out of the basic properties of
infinity, that an infinite series doesn't HAVE a "last" element.

So, you logic is just shown to be based on lies and errors.
WM
2025-01-28 09:21:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Post by WM
Also an infinite set needs a first element. But no FISON is necessary
or sufficient.
Which means the set of "necessary FISONs" doesn't exist.
The set of useful FISONs does not exist. Otherwise name the first one.
Post by Richard Damon
That doesn't mean what you want it to mean, it just shows your logic is
broken.
we can build an infinite number of infinite sets of FISONs whose union
is the Natural Numbers,
That is the diploma of stupidity. Name the first useful FISON!

Regards, WM

Jim Burns
2025-01-25 19:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
The union of all FISONs covers UF(n)
∀n ∈ UF(n): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
Try to find a counter example. Fail.
UF(n) is
the union of all FISONs

The union of all FISONs covers
the union of all FISONs
Therefore, no.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Each FISON is a proper subset of another FISON.
Each FISON is a proper subset of UF(n)
No FISON is UF(n)
That is potential infinity.
Post by Jim Burns
Whatever contains each FISON  contains UF(n)
Alas this is not a set but
a (potentially in-) finite changing collection.
No.
A FISON is
always and everywhere a FISON.
A set containing a FISON
always and everywhere contains that FISON.
A set containing a set containing a FISON
always and everywhere contains
the set containing the FISON.
Therefore, no changes.

Anyway,
what you have to say about UF(n) doesn't matter
for the goal of preventing Bob from disappearing.
The FISONs themselves are reason enough
to throw out your "logic".

For each FISON ⟦0,n⟧
there is a fuller.by.one FISON ⟦0,n+1⟧ and
there is a swap n⇄n+1, ordered by n

For Bob who is in room 0 before all swaps,
if he is in room n
then it is between n-1⇄n and n⇄n+1

If it is after all swaps,
then Bob isn't in any FISON.end room,
even though swaps only place him in FISON.end rooms.
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Otherwise Cantor's theorem would require
the existence of a first necessary FISON.
Do you agree that
or every FISON
the question whether it is necessary
can be answered?
If Bob is somewhere after all swaps,
how did he get there?
Post by WM
Swaps cannot eliminate Bob.
He remains but i the darkness.
No swaps are into the darkness.
Jim Burns
2025-01-25 20:23:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Swaps cannot eliminate Bob.
He remains but i the darkness.
A set larger than
any set with
⎛ fuller.by.one sets larger and
⎝ emptier.by.one sets smaller
is not
any set with
⎛ fuller.by.one sets larger and
⎝ emptier.by.one sets smaller.
Post by Jim Burns
No swaps are into the darkness.
WM
2025-01-26 09:49:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Burns
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Swaps cannot eliminate Bob.
He remains but i the darkness.
A set larger than
any set with
⎛ fuller.by.one sets larger and
⎝ emptier.by.one sets smaller
is not
any set with
⎛ fuller.by.one sets larger and
⎝ emptier.by.one sets smaller.
Post by Jim Burns
No swaps are into the darkness.
No swaps can complete actual infinity of ℕ.

The length of the first column is bounded by the length of all rows

{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...

all of which are finite. No actual infinity is represented by the first
column.

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-26 10:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Swaps cannot eliminate Bob. He remains but i the darkness.
A set larger than any set with ⎛ fuller.by.one sets larger and ⎝
emptier.by.one sets smaller is not any set with ⎛ fuller.by.one sets
larger and ⎝ emptier.by.one sets smaller.
Post by Jim Burns
No swaps are into the darkness.
No swaps can complete actual infinity of ℕ.
Infinite swaps can.
--
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.
Jim Burns
2025-01-26 22:54:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Swaps cannot eliminate Bob.
He remains but i the darkness.
A set larger than
any set with
⎛ fuller.by.one sets larger and
⎝ emptier.by.one sets smaller
is not
any set with
⎛ fuller.by.one sets larger and
⎝ emptier.by.one sets smaller.
Post by Jim Burns
No swaps are into the darkness.
No swaps can complete actual infinity of ℕ.
No actual infinity is represented by the first column.
No appendix 𝔻 such that ∀d ∈ 𝔻: f(d) = d
completes potential.infinity to actual.infinity.
Post by WM
No swaps can complete actual infinity of ℕ.
For each FISON, there is
a fuller.by.one FISON which is larger.
That is complete enough
in order to allow Bob to disappear.

Bob disappears where
a set emptier.by.Bob maps losslessly to
a set fuller.by.one,and
both sets, with without and with Bob,
are not any set with
⎛ fuller.by.one sets larger and
⎝ emptier.by.one sets smaller.

The sets aren't larger and aren't smaller.
They are the same size,
which allows Bob to disappear by lossless swaps.
WM
2025-01-27 12:55:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
No swaps can complete actual infinity of ℕ.
No actual infinity is represented by the first column.
No appendix 𝔻 such that ∀d ∈ 𝔻: f(d) = d
completes potential.infinity to actual.infinity.
∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
No swaps can complete actual infinity of ℕ.
For each FISON, there is
a fuller.by.one FISON which is larger.
That is complete enough
in order to allow Bob to disappear.
Not outside of all numbers.

All the FISONs are smaller than ℵo elements:

{1}
{2, 1}
{3, 2, 1}
...

which prove that the first column is smaller than ℵo elements too.

That means no actual infinity is involved in visible numbers. Bob may go
further. Then he becomes invisible.
Post by Jim Burns
The sets aren't larger and aren't smaller.
They are the same size,
which allows Bob to disappear by lossless swaps.
Yes, in the dark domain.

Regards, WM
Jim Burns
2025-01-27 22:07:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
No swaps can complete actual infinity of ℕ.
No actual infinity is represented by the first column.
No appendix 𝔻 such that ∀d ∈ 𝔻: f(d) = d
completes potential.infinity to actual.infinity.
∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }
You (WM) seem to be offering that as
a counter.example to my claim that there's no 𝔻

You (WM) seem to be using that
to say
ᵂᴹ⎛ U(F(n)) is _incompleteᵂᴹ_ in covering ℕ
ᵂᴹ⎜( ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ\{1,2,3,...,n}| = ℵ₀
ᵂᴹ⎜ and {1,2,3,...} is _completeᵂᴹ_ in covering ℕ
ᵂᴹ⎜( ℕ\{1,2,3,...} = {}
ᵂᴹ⎜ because
ᵂᴹ⎜ there is an appendix 𝔻 = {1,2,3,...}\U(F(n))
ᵂᴹ⎜ which _completesᵂᴹ_ U(F(n)) to {1,2,3,...}
ᵂᴹ⎝ and that 𝔻 is offered as a counter.example.

What is ⋃{F(n)} ?
What is {1,2,3,...} ?

⋃{F(n)} is the union of all FISONs.
_What that means_ is that,
if 𝕏 is superset each FISON,
then ⋃{F(n)} is subset 𝕏 and superset each FISON
{F(n)} ᵉᵃᶜʰ⊆ 𝕏 ⇒ {F(n)} ᵉᵃᶜʰ⊆ ⋃{F(n)} ⊆ 𝕏

{1,2,3,...} = (⋃{F(n)})∪𝔻 = ⋃{F(n),𝔻}

Certainly, an appendix 𝔻 is possible.
However,
supposing your (WM's) counter.example to be correct,
only the _emptiest_ completingᵂᴹ 𝔻 completesᵂᴹ.
The fuller ones are fluff.
Since there is nothing left to accomplish,
the fuller ones accomplish nothing.

What is the _emptiest_ 𝔻ₘᵢₙ such that
⎛ ⋃{F(n),𝔻ₘᵢₙ} \ ⋃{F(n),𝔻ₘᵢₙ} = {}
⎜ ∀n ∈ ⋃{F(n)}:
⎝ | ⋃{F(n),𝔻ₘᵢₙ} \{1,2,3,...,n}| = |⋃{F(n),𝔻ₘᵢₙ}|
?

Emptiest 𝔻ₘᵢₙ = {}
because
⎛ ⋃{F(n),{}} \ ⋃{F(n),{}} = {}
⎜ ∀n ∈ ⋃{F(n)}:
⎝ |⋃{F(n),{}}\{1,2,3,...,n}| = |⋃{F(n),{}}|

For each set A such that
⎛ sets fuller.by.one than A are larger and
⎝ sets emptier.by.one than A are smaller
there is a FISON in {F(n)} the size of A

There is no FISON in {F(n)} the size of {F(n)}
There is no FISON in {F(n)} the size of ⋃{F(n)}

{F(n)} is NOT a set such that
⎛ sets fuller.by.one than {F(n)} are larger and
⎝ sets emptier.by.one than {F(n)} are smaller

⋃{F(n)} is NOT a set such that
⎛ sets fuller.by.one than ⋃{F(n)} are larger and
⎝ sets emptier.by.one than ⋃{F(n)} are smaller

A set the size of {F(n)} or ⋃{F(n)} is NOT a set such that
⎛ sets fuller.by.one than ⋃{F(n)} are larger and
⎝ sets emptier.by.one than ⋃{F(n)} are smaller

∀n ∈ ⋃{F(n)}:
|⋃{F(n)}\{1,2,3,...,n}| = |⋃{F(n)}\{1,2,3,...,n-1}|

There is no first end.segment smaller than ⋃{F(n)}
The end.segments are well.ordered.
There is no end.segment of ⋃{F(n)} smaller than ⋃{F(n)}
∀n ∈ ⋃{F(n)}:
|⋃{F(n)}\{1,2,3,...,n}| = |⋃{F(n)}|

And, of course,
⋃{F(n)}/⋃{F(n)} = {}

Pre.appendixed ⋃{F(n)} is as completeᵂᴹ and as incompleteᵂᴹ
as any ⋃{F(n),𝔻}
as ⋃{F(n),𝔻ₘᵢₙ}
as ⋃{F(n),{}}
as ⋃{F(n)}

No 𝔻 completesᵂᴹ ⋃{F(n)}
Post by WM
∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }
No appendix 𝔻 such that ∀d ∈ 𝔻: f(d) = d
completesᵂᴹ potentialᵂᴹ.infinity to actualᵂᴹ.infinity.
WM
2025-01-28 09:13:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo
ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ...} = { }
What is ⋃{F(n)} ?
It is the union of FISONs, ℕ_def.
Post by Jim Burns
What is {1,2,3,...} ?

Post by Jim Burns
{1,2,3,...} = (⋃{F(n)})∪𝔻 = ⋃{F(n),𝔻}
Certainly, an appendix 𝔻 is possible.
Yes, it is the dark domain.
Post by Jim Burns
|⋃{F(n)}\{1,2,3,...,n}| = |⋃{F(n)}\{1,2,3,...,n-1}|
There is no first end.segment smaller than ⋃{F(n)}
The end.segments are well.ordered.
But potentially infinite.
Post by Jim Burns
No 𝔻 completesᵂᴹ ⋃{F(n)}
Then actual infinity does not exist.

Regards, WM
WM
2025-01-26 09:37:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jim Burns
If it is after all swaps,
then Bob isn't in any FISON.end room,
even though swaps only place him in FISON.end rooms.
He does not disappear because lossless exchanges do not allow losses.
Hence he must be in the dark domain.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Do you agree that
for every FISON
the question whether it is necessary can be answered?
If Bob is somewhere after all swaps,
how did he get there?
By lossless exchanges.
Post by Jim Burns
Post by WM
Swaps cannot eliminate Bob.
He remains but i the darkness.
No swaps are into the darkness.
No swaps executed consciously can end in darkness. But swaps produced by
a general formula must end in darkness because ℵo numbers lurk behind
all definable numbers: ∀n ∈ U(F(n)): |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.

Regards, WM
joes
2025-01-26 11:11:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
ℕ is a superset of each FISON Each set which is a superset of each
FISON is a superset of ℕ
Wrong.
For every natural, {1, …, n} exists.
Post by WM
That's a longer.winded way to say that ℕ is the union of all 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 the existence of a necessary set.
Post by WM
Post by WM
"All" is not more than the repeated "each".
'All' is complete, whatever you (WM) mean by 'complete'.
From the finite.length description of a FISON,
we know that up to a FISON is not complete, is not all.
Up to every FISON |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
N is not a FISON.
Post by WM
Since every FISON is the
union of all its predecessors we get F(n): |ℕ \ UF(n)| = ℵo.
Is there supposed to be a universal quantifier there?
Post by WM
If you don't believe in the union of all F(n), find the first exception.
WDYM believe in the union?
--
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.
WM
2025-01-26 12:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
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 the existence of a necessary set.
But your claim that a set exists forces the existence of a first FISON
that cannot be discarded. Otherwise all can be discarded.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 22:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
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 the existence of a necessary set.
But your claim that a set exists forces the existence of a first FISON
that cannot be discarded. Otherwise all can be discarded.
Regards, WM
It isn't MY claim that a set of necessary FISION exist, it is YOURS.

My claim is that the set of Natural Numbers exist, as it has been shown.

If we start with the *INFINITE* set of FISONs (and the size of that set
IS infinite) we can remove any finite combination of them and their
union will be the Natual Numbers.

I make no claim that there is a specific set of "necessary" FISONs, just
am able to show that *ANY* infinite set of them will include all Natural
Numbers. Note, you can even exclude an infinite subset of FISONs from
that infinite set, as long as it still leaves an infinite set, and you
will cover the full set of Natual Numbers.

Your logic is just built on error, and shows that you are just ignorant
of what you are talking about, and so ignorant that you can't see you
ignorance.
WM
2025-01-27 11:38:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
I make no claim that there is a specific set of "necessary" FISONs,
Hence we can go through the sequence of FISONs one by one and eliminate
each one such that none remains.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-27 12:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
I make no claim that there is a specific set of "necessary" FISONs,
Hence we can go through the sequence of FISONs one by one and eliminate
each one such that none remains.
Regards, WM
Nope, because you can't eiminate an infinite set individually.

You logic lies because it talks about things it can not actually handle.

You are just proving your utter stupidity.
joes
2025-01-27 17:51:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by joes
Post by WM
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 the existence of a necessary set.
But your claim that a set exists forces the existence of a first FISON
that cannot be discarded. Otherwise all can be discarded.
No, I was talking about sufficient sets.
--
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.
FromTheRafters
2025-01-26 13:01:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by joes
Post by WM
ℕ is a superset of each FISON Each set which is a superset of each
FISON is a superset of ℕ
Wrong.
For every natural, {1, …, n} exists.
Post by WM
That's a longer.winded way to say that ℕ is the union of all 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 the existence of a necessary set.
Post by WM
Post by WM
"All" is not more than the repeated "each".
'All' is complete, whatever you (WM) mean by 'complete'.
From the finite.length description of a FISON,
we know that up to a FISON is not complete, is not all.
Up to every FISON |ℕ \ {1, 2, 3, ..., n}| = ℵo.
N is not a FISON.
Post by WM
Since every FISON is the
union of all its predecessors we get F(n): |ℕ \ UF(n)| = ℵo.
Is there supposed to be a universal quantifier there?
Post by WM
If you don't believe in the union of all F(n), find the first exception.
WDYM believe in the union?
I think he is going to propose.
Richard Damon
2025-01-26 22:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
All finite initial segments of natural numbers, FISONs F(n) = {1, 2,
3, ..., n} as well as their union are less than the set ℕ of natural
numbers.
Proof: Assume UF(n) = ℕ. The small FISONs are not necessary. What is the
first necessary FISON? There is none! All can be dropped. But according
to Cantor's Theorem B, every non-empty set of different numbers of the
first and the second number class has a smallest number, a minimum. This
proves that the set of indices n of necessary F(n), by not having a
first element, is empty.
Regards, WM
Thinking a bit about this, the "Set of Necessary FISONs" will be empty,
becuase no particular FISON is needed, you just need an infinite set of
them.

A simple proof of this is that we can build up the set at least two
different ways using two infinite sets with no members in common.

The first set it the set of all ODD FISONs, i.e. FISONs whoes highest
member is an odd number.

There is no Natural Number not covered by this union, as for every
Natural Number, either it is itself odd, and thus part of its own FISON,
or the number one greater than itself (which does exist) will be odd,
and this number will exist in that FISON, and thus in the union of them.

We can also do that with the set of even FISONs.

For a FISON to be in the set of "Necessary" it would need to be in EVERY
set that meets the requriment, but since no set does, there are no
"necessary" FISONs.

Just like there are no "necessaery" Numbers to have the sum of the set
to be zero. We can generate the sum of zero many different ways, and
have no one necessary value for the set.

The one requirement we can see is that the set of FISONs being unioned
together must be infinite, as any finite number of finite set unioned
together results in a finite set, so can't cover an infinite set.

And, it seems, as long as you DO have an infinite set of FISONs that you
are unioning together, you will cover the full set of Natural Numbers.

Note, the fact that on one set is "necessary" doesn't mean what you try
to make it mean, but that is because you logic just doesn't understand
that nature of the infinite, and you are too stupid to understand that
limitation in your logic, which makes your brain just a giant black hole
that no intelegence can get out of.
WM
2025-01-27 11:47:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Damon
Thinking a bit about this, the "Set of Necessary FISONs" will be empty,
Hence we can go through the sequence of FISONs one by one and eliminate
each one so that none remains.
Post by Richard Damon
becuase no particular FISON is needed, you just need an infinite set of
them.
A simple proof of this is that we can build up the set at least two
different ways using two infinite sets with no members in common.
The first set it the set of all ODD FISONs, i.e. FISONs whoes highest
member is an odd number.
We can go through the sequence of odd FISONs one by one and eliminate
each one so that none remains.
Post by Richard Damon
There is no Natural Number not covered by this union, as for every
Natural Number, either it is itself odd, and thus part of its own FISON,
or the number one greater than itself (which does exist) will be odd,
and this number will exist in that FISON, and thus in the union of them.
We can also do that with the set of even FISONs.
We can go through the sequence of even FISONs one by one and eliminate
each one so that none remains.
Post by Richard Damon
For a FISON to be in the set of "Necessary" it would need to be in EVERY
set that meets the requriment, but since no set does, there are no
"necessary" FISONs.
And there are no sufficient FISONs. Each one can be discarded as
insufficient.
Post by Richard Damon
Just like there are no "necessaery" Numbers to have the sum of the set
to be zero.
No. FISONs are ordered such that if F(n) is proven insufficient, we know
that all smaller FISONs are proven insufficient too. Every FISON is
insufficient, because ℵ₀ numbers are missing.

Regards, WM
Richard Damon
2025-01-27 12:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Thinking a bit about this, the "Set of Necessary FISONs" will be empty,
Hence we can go through the sequence of FISONs one by one and eliminate
each one so that none remains.
Post by Richard Damon
becuase no particular FISON is needed, you just need an infinite set
of them.
A simple proof of this is that we can build up the set at least two
different ways using two infinite sets with no members in common.
The first set it the set of all ODD FISONs, i.e. FISONs whoes highest
member is an odd number.
We can go through the sequence of odd FISONs one by one and eliminate
each one so that none remains.
Nope, because they are an infinite set, which can't be created or
eliminated "individually", so you logic is just built on lies and
falsehoods, turning your brain into mush from
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
There is no Natural Number not covered by this union, as for every
Natural Number, either it is itself odd, and thus part of its own
FISON, or the number one greater than itself (which does exist) will
be odd, and this number will exist in that FISON, and thus in the
union of them.
We can also do that with the set of even FISONs.
We can go through the sequence of even FISONs one by one and eliminate
each one so that none remains.
Nope. Try it. You, a finite being, can't do infinity that way, so you
can't do what you claim, and thus prove yourself to be a stupid liar,
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
For a FISON to be in the set of "Necessary" it would need to be in
EVERY set that meets the requriment, but since no set does, there are
no "necessary" FISONs.
And there are no sufficient FISONs. Each one can be discarded as
insufficient.
Right, Individually none are sufficient, but collectively they are, that
is the nature of infinity that you just can't understand due to your
stupidity,
Post by WM
Post by Richard Damon
Just like there are no "necessaery" Numbers to have the sum of the set
to be zero.
No. FISONs are ordered such that if F(n) is proven insufficient, we know
that all smaller FISONs are proven insufficient too. Every FISON is
insufficient, because ℵ₀ numbers are missing.
ANY FISON is insufficient, but not ALL.

Your logic can't do "ALL" of an infinite set, and blows itself to
smithereens when you try to.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
Post by WM
Regards, WM
Loading...