On Dec 14, 2:16 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 14 Dez., 17:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 14, 11:51 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 14 Dez., 15:49, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Any set of FISONs without largest FISON (if the largest FISON cannot > > > > change) > > > > must contain more than one FISON. > > > > I say that is impossible. If you can prove your belief by an example, > > > then do so, preferably by using the exponents of the sequence (a_k) > > > with > > > a_k = 10^1 + 10^2 + ... + 10^k. These are FISONs without a largest > > > FISON. Otherwise, you are talking nonsense. >
"If you can prove your belief by an example"
The example Q={ {exponents in a_k}| k is prime} was given.
> If you can prove your belief by an example, showing how at leat two > natural numbers do not fit into one FISON, I will believe you. > Otherwise not.
"if you can prove your belief by an example, showing how at leat two natural numbers do not fit into one FISON"
And with a audible WOOOSH the goalposts change. There are no two natural numbers that do not fit into one FISON. However, Q is still an example of a set of FISONs that cannot fit into one FISON. Of course there is no one specific FISON that makes Q into a set that cannot fit into one FISON any more than there is one specific FISON that makes Q infinite.
