On 4/16/2013 3:55 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <us-dnQ1L8b384vDMnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com>, > fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote: > >> On 4/16/2013 6:51 AM, WM wrote: >>> On 16 Apr., 10:12, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >>> >>>> B is, by WM's own definition, an endless strictly increasing sequence >>>> of FISONs, and as such an endless strictly increasing sequence cannot >>>> contain a maximal member, nor its limit value, if any. >>> >>> Correct. >>>> >>>> Since every member of sequence s B is proper subset of A, >>> >>> No. >> >> Give WM a proper statement of set theory and >> get a response based on confusion over the >> axioms. >> >> >>> It is clear that every possible sequence of naturals in A is >>> contained in a line of the table, >> >> "every possible sequence of naturals..." >> >> It is like a prophecy... >> >>> i.e., is an element of B. >> >> "...is an element" >> >> ...being fulfilled. >> >>> This >>> excludes A as a super set. >> >> I am a little weak on infinitary combinatorics, >> but I think WM got this part correct. > > He didn't! > > B is a sequence of FISONs, and as such cannot have A as either a member > or as a subsequnce. >>
I read "every possible sequence of naturals" in the sense whereby it is uncountable Baire space. Thus, A does not have the needed cardinality.
I give you credit, by the way. Half of what I read in these threads is incomprehensible.