Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 293
Replies: 44   Last Post: Jun 27, 2013 2:25 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de Posts: 18,076 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: WMytheology § 293
Posted: Jun 21, 2013 2:26 AM
 Plain Text Reply

On Thursday, 20 June 2013 22:19:28 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> In article <33c529f8-3033-4ac9-8970-483604b38bca@hs10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.

Nevertheless every sequence is a set. Repetitive terms are simply not counted. Even sets can be written with repetitions: {1, 2, 3, 1} = {1, 2, 3}. This is an identity.

Regards, WM

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.