On 8 Apr., 23:36, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <c4b02b07-0692-4d46-aae4-2f77826be...@w21g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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
containing its union, at least in case of von Neuman naturals or the list
1 1, 2 1, 2, 3 ...
since every term is the union of itself and all preceeding terms.
> whereas a union, whether infinite or not, is a set.
Why has an infinite sequence of finite unions in this case not the result |N (why is |N not a term of the sequence), but the infinite union has the result |N?