> WM cannot be an ultrafinitist and > expect others to not hold him to > task for it.
There is a third way: potential infinity.
> In constrast to > Brouwer, he repeatedly states > that there is absolutely no > completed infinity.
Brouwer also states that. Brouwer accepts infinite sequences that can be defined by a finite definition like 0.111... Why the finite definition? because there is no chance to get an actually infinite chain of symbols 1 (or any other period).
> Therefore, > there must be a maximal natural > number for his model of > mathematics.
There is no fixed maximal number! The upper threshold depends on many circumstances, including time and the state of the observer or mathematician.