On 20 Apr., 20:05, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 4/20/2013 11:43 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > and a sequence of sets. > > No. > > > Ordered sets are given with respect to the axioms, > > > > Ax(x>=x) > > > > AxAy(x=y <-> (x>=y /\ y>=x)) > > > > AxAyAz((x>=y /\ y>=z) -> x>=z)
Better drop them and use common sense than writíng them down and misreading them. > > > > > > Your use of the term in the present context as initial segments > > of a well-ordered linearly ordered set makes them a type of > > sequence.
Yes, by accident you are right with "sequences", by you are wrong with "no sets".