In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 25 Mrz., 21:09, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > Why should any FISON be left? > > > > Every natural is in at least one FISON, so without at least one FISON > > in that set of only FISONs there is nothing to contain ANY natuals. > > That is so in potential infinity.
I neither know nor care what WM claims goes on in his Wolkenmuekenheim.
But in standard mathematics, what I said above is true, a set of FISONs containing no FISONs means a union of no naturals.
> There is no sequence that is larger > than every FISON, but only for every FISON, there is a larger one. > But in actual infinity, there is a sequence that is larger than every > FISON.
True, but it is not a FISON.
> But in effect every FISON fails to empty |N.
No one FISON does, nor do even finitely many of them, but all infinitely many of them, collectively, do.