In article <b5b5b1c4-9981-411a-91f9-0bf5b2152310@f36g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 26 Okt., 23:21, SPQR <S...@roman.gov> wrote: > > > > None. d_oo has neither a predecessor nor a successor. It has not even > > > itself. It has no existence. > > > > Then why do you put it into your lists of elements, as you do? > > > > In order to show the readers other than Virgil that d_oo is a > stillbirth.
It is a perfectly good union of a family of sets, which is only stillborn in WM's matheological miscgenations. > > > And in ZFC, it can certainly be made to exist by suitable definition as > > the limit (union) of a suitably nested sequence of sets, like the von > > Neumann naturals > > The limit of the sequence b_1, b_2, b_3, ... is never reached.
Because WM's reach is so miniscule he wants to, but cannot, curtail everyone else's. . > But the limit of the sequence 1, 2, 3, ... is reached.
So is the union of {1}, {1,2} ,{1,2,3},... > > This shows ZFC being a stillbirth too.
