In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 20 Jun., 19:34, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> > > > > Speaking of taking the union of a sequence is gibberish. Treating a > > sequence of sets as a set of sets is the work of a chowderhead, a > > clown > > or a charlatan. > > Isn't a sequence of X without repetitions an ordered set of X? In > particular an inclusion monotonic strictly increasing sequence is an > ordered set.
For once, it is WM who is right.
The members of a sequence are not only members of a set, but of a well-ordered set. --