
Re: WMytheology § 293
Posted:
Jun 21, 2013 3:18 AM


On Thursday, 20 June 2013 23:54:10 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > In article <7557adfe6a114e6992ab1d6121a7c17a@w7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.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

