Implications

This non-implication, Form 64 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 270, whose code is 4, is constructed around a proven non-implication as follows:

  • This non-implication was constructed without the use of this first code 2/1 implication.
  • A proven non-implication whose code is 3. In this case, it's Code 3: 1216, Form 64 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 285 whose summary information is:
    Hypothesis Statement
    Form 64 <p> \(E(I,Ia)\) There are no amorphous sets. (Equivalently, every infinite set is the union of two disjoint infinite sets.) </p>

    Conclusion Statement
    Form 285 <p> Let \(E\) be a set and \(f: E\to E\), then \(f\) has a fixed point if and only if \(E\) is not the union of three mutually disjoint sets \(E_1\), \(E_2\) and \(E_3\) such that \(E_i \cap f(E_i) = \emptyset\) for \(i=1, 2, 3\). </p>

  • An (optional) implication of code 1 or code 2 is given. In this case, it's Code 2: 4746, whose string of implications is:
    270 \(\Rightarrow\) 62 \(\Rightarrow\) 285

The conclusion Form 64 \( \not \Rightarrow \) Form 270 then follows.

Finally, the
List of models where hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false:

Name Statement
\(\cal N22(p)\) Makowski/Wi\'sniewski/Mostowski Model (Where \(p\) is aprime) Let \(A=\bigcup\{A_i: i\in\omega\}\) where The \(A_i\)'s are pairwisedisjoint and each has cardinality \(p\)

Edit | Back