Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Re: WMytheology § 293
Replies: 10   Last Post: Jun 30, 2013 4:30 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 13,456
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: WMytheology § 293
Posted: Jun 21, 2013 3:18 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thursday, 20 June 2013 23:54:10 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> In article <7557adfe-6a11-4e69-92ab-1d6121a7c17a@w7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 20 Jun., 20:25, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> >

> > > No. A sequence is a function with domain the natural numbers.

> > However, have you really not understood that the sets of a sequence of sets can be unioned?

> How is "A sequence is a function with domain the natural numbers." incompatible with "a sequence o sets can be unioned"? They are certainly compatible

Not in FredJeffries' world. FredJeffries wrote:

==================================
A sequence is not a set. 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.
==================================

Regards, WM




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.