In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
That is not what was asked for. If there is only a finite number of naturals possible the WM should be able to give us that number.
Otherwise there is no reason to assume that there can exist any natural numbers without successors, or doubles, or triples, etc. --