In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> > Is every natural number in some FISION? > >Yes. > > In a self-contradictory theory you cannot conclude anything from a > contradiction.
It is only within WM's wild weird world of WMytheology that any such theory becomes contradictory.
Outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, any union of any family of sets, like the union of the family all FISONs, contains all members of all member of that family.
Challenge to WM: Since WM claims the the union of all FISONs does not contain all naturals, he is also claiming the existence of a natural not in any FISON, so we challenge him to name any such natural. > > > > So, is every natural number in the Union of the List of each, every, and > > all FISIONs? > > Yes. > > Is every FISON lacking a set of aleph_0 natural numbers? > Yes. > Are there two FISONs which are not in the well-order of all FISONs by > inclusion monotony? > No. > Can a union over two FISONs supply more naturals than are in one FISON? > No
But any union over infinitely many FISONs can, and does, provide more that any union over only finitely many FISONs, and s provides all of |N. > > Why should these statements be less true than yours? Because yours are > historically older?
Beccause WMytheology is inherently corrupt. > > > The two statements: > 1) Every natural number is in some FISON > and > 2) Not every natural number is in some FISON > are both of same truth-level. > > None of them excludes the other because the theory is self-contradictory.
Since that alleged contradiction is only contradictory within WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, it is WM's wild weird world of WMytheology that causes it. Thus it is WM's wild weird world of WMytheology that is self-contradictory. --