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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: WMytheology � 293
Posted: Jun 21, 2013 3:45 PM

mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Thursday, 20 June 2013 22:19:28 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> > In article
> > <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.

Outside of WMytheology, an infinite sequence is necessarily a function
whose domain is either the standardly ordered set |N or is some set
order-isomoprphic to the standardly ordered set |N.

Fortunately for the world, the inside of WMytheology is infinitesimally
small except for WM's bloated head.
--