On 19 Apr., 21:37, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > It is not the size of any one index but the number of different indices > > > that is not finite. > > > The number of indices is a number. Up to any finite index it is a > > finite number. > > Then you should be aqble to give us the allegedly finite number of > indices. Unless here are more of them that an finite number.
The number of indices up to index n is n (unless you count 0 as an index, then the number is n + 1). The numbers of indices and the values of indices are in bijection.