In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 Apr., 16:27, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 8, 4:09 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 8 Apr., 15:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Let D be the collection of all finite lines. > > > > > > Do you agree with > > > > > > If you remove the collection of all finite > > > > lines from D there is nothing left. > > > > > > Yes or No > > > > > Depends > > > > Wow! WM will not even concede > > that if you have A and take away > > A then you have nothing left. > > When talking to a sober scientist, there is no problem to admit that. > But when talking to someone who insists (or is in doubt to insist > because he is not clear in his expression), that there could be a > difference between an infinite sequence of finite unions of elements > and an infinite union of the same elements, then I would .
An infinite sequence of finite unions is still an infinite sequence whereas a union, whether infinite or not, is a set.
If WM cannot distinguish between the two, no wonder that he is so perpetually perplexed. --