>>14431013>“infinite set” isn’t well-defined in the first place.There's literally no problem to write down the predicate P on sets X that says it's infinite if, for every x in X, there's also an y in which which has a higher rank than x.
E.g. {}, {{}}, {{{}}}, ...
Whether you like infinite sets of not, it's shizzo bubble to say that there's no definition of infinite sets. Even if you were to say that that definition has nothing to do with how you do or don't imagine infinite sets, that's one definition in the sense that people use it.
Did the thread already end up in pure shizzo denial?
Are you gonna deny that it's not historic fact that people have taken the utterance "infinite sets" and have written down what they mean by that in a formal string of symbols?
I think you can't argue that this even never occured, and by virture of this, a notion of infinite sets has been well-defined.
That is to say, even in a world where mathematicans had collectively agree that by "infinite sets" we mean the number 3, this would mean that indeed "infinite sets" have been well-defined. Because defining something is an act of us
