Let A, B (non-empty) sequentially compact sets. Then the intersection of A and B is sequentially compact.
One can prove this hypothesis by selecting a sequence in the intersection and observing a convergent subsequence in A the limit of which is a. Then there exists an subsubsequence in B and as the limits coincide and the hypothesis is proven.
Now, I am wondering, if the following is a valid proof (or it is just a reformulation of the argument in proof 1):
Again, select a sequence in the intersection and observe a convergent subsequence. As the sequence and thus the convergent subsequence with it's limit are in (say) A, the limit must be in B, too, otherwise there are elements in the sequence which are not in B, which is a contradiction to the givens. Shouldn't that proof the hypothesis as well?