Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: WMytheology � 293
Posted:
Jun 21, 2013 3:39 PM


In article <b4eb29a8a0a24de083391147447bcea5@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> 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
Which only shows that WM is not the only one to be wrong here. 

