> On 27 Nov., 11:43, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > > We are talking about a vase which is never emptied completely! > > > > > Hence it cannot be empty unless "infinity" is identical to "never". > > > But this describes potential infinity and excludes phantasies like > > > Cantor's finished diagonal number. > > > > But you lose control at infinity!
> So does Cantor.
Good to know you agree that *you* lose control. Let's leave Cantor out of it.
> > So your "hence" doesn't work. > > It works if there is anyone who does not lose control at infinity. > That's enough.
If you are not in control, it doesn't work for you; you can't say anything about what does or doesn't happen at infinity, except by pretending that it must be the same as the finite case.
That pretence is worthless when you admit you have lost control.