Jesse said

> So, although the set of all well-defined finite descriptions must
> be
> "countable" in the traditional sense where arbitrary mappings are
> it is not countable if only finite-describable mappings are allowed,
> although it can easily be shown to be smaller than another countable
> namely the set of all finite descriptions without regard for whether
> are "well-defined" or not

Doesn't this unintuitive result show that you are doomed if you only
believe in the platonic existence of mathematical objects with finite

Was this the point you were making, despite saying earlier you were
skeptical of the existence of objects without a finite description?

- David

Reply via email to