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 an ordered set of X without repetitions?
A sequence need not, in general, be without any repetition of terms. --