In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Graham Cooper <email@example.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 6:54 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > WM is the only matheologian here. > > > > I do not claim that any "numbers" are 'objects of thought that cannot be > > though about'. That some numbers cannot be though about in certain ways, > > does not mean they cannot be thought about in other ways. > > > Do you claim there are simply MORE NUMBERS than (the smallest) > infinity?
If there are infinitely many in any sense, then there are apparently more than a smallest possible infinity, at least if the power set of a set has more members than the original set. --