I suggest that your article "A Glimpse of Cantor's Paradise" contains a semantic paradox. In your "Origins of Proof" you show that 1=2 by the expedient of division by zero! Cantor shows that different sets can be of different sizes, this is then used to suggest different infinities. But by definition a set has bounds and infinity has no bounds. So no set can be infinite no matter how large and the infinite contains all sets, indeed everything. I suggest that the finite is bounded by all that one can imagine and that the infinite is beyond ones imagination. So if you can imagine it, it is finite even if impossible.

## Infinity

I suggest that your article "A Glimpse of Cantor's Paradise" contains a semantic paradox. In your "Origins of Proof" you show that 1=2 by the expedient of division by zero! Cantor shows that different sets can be of different sizes, this is then used to suggest different infinities. But by definition a set has bounds and infinity has no bounds. So no set can be infinite no matter how large and the infinite contains all sets, indeed everything. I suggest that the finite is bounded by all that one can imagine and that the infinite is beyond ones imagination. So if you can imagine it, it is finite even if impossible.