Modern, Ancient and Early Modern Alternatives to Cantor’s

Theory of Infinite Numbers. What Theory of Infinity

Should be Thought?
Piotr Błaszczyk
Institute of Mathematics, Pedagogical University of Cracow, Kraków, Poland
piotr.blaszczyk@up.krakow.pl

Abstract Recent educational studies in mathematics seek to justify a thesis that there
is a conflict between students intuitions regarding infinity and the standard theory of
infinite numbers. On the contrary, we argue that students intuitions do not match but to
Cantor’s theory, not to any theory of infinity. To this end, we sketch ways of measuring
infinity developed at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries that provide alternatives
to Cantor’s theory of cardinal and ordinal numbers. Some of them introduce new kinds
of infinite numbers, others simply define new arithmetic for Cantor’s infinite numbers.
With regard to these new approaches, we argue that there are various intuitions of actual
infinity which can find an adequate theory.
We also present pre-Cantorain theories of actual infinity developed within the tradition
of geometrical optics. They corroborate our claim on various intuitions concerning actual
infinity.

1 Cantor’s Paradise with the Rotten Arithmetic

Cantor established two kinds of infinity: cardinal and ordinal numbers, each with its own
arithmetic and its own relation greater than. In both cases, the set of natural numbers,
N, makes the yardstick of infinity, be it the cardinal number ℵ0 or the ordinal number ω.
In fact, the first infinite numbers are defined either as the cardinality of the set of natural
numbers N, or as the type of the well-ordered set (N, <), while the system of natural
numbers models the arithmetic of finite numbers. Cantor’s theory, thus, assumes that finite
numbers are natural numbers, and it attempts to extend the system (N, +, ·, 0, 1, <) where
the axioms of ordered field, i.e. commutativity of sums and products and compatibility of
the order with sums and products, represent the basic laws of arithmetic.
However, since natural numbers share characteristics of both cardinal and ordinal
numbers, the extension of the system of finite numbers can be carried out in two directions.
While Cantor’s infinities are supposed to extend the system of finite numbers, they hardly
mimic its arithmetic whatever direction we choose: sums and products of ordinal numbers
are not commutative, the order of cardinal numbers is not compatible with their sums
and products, e.g.
1 + ω 6= ω + 1, 2ω 6= ω2, or 2 + ℵ0 = 3 + ℵ0 , although 2 < 3.
Cantor clearly realized these constrains, but he believed infinite numbers do not follow
all the rules of arithmetic of finite numbers due to their very nature. He even proudly
declared that infinite numbers do not comply with the Euclid’s law The whole is greater
than the part 1 , since it is possible that a set and its subset have the same cardinality.
1
See Euclid, Elements, Book I, Common Notions 5.
 At the end of the 19th century there were no alternatives for Cantor’s theory, and
people started to believe that the arithmetic of infinite numbers has to be different from the
arithmetic of finite numbers. This opinion still prevails in the education of mathematics,
despite the first alternative to Cantor’s theory has been developed already in 1906, and
last decades of the 20th century have brought another non-Cantorian theories. Here is a
sample view on supposed relation between students intuitions and mathematical infinity:
“There is the ideal, pure, final mathematical structure which is unquestionable as a logical
construct. And there is the psychological reality of the same concept which may remain
complex, contradictory, strongly related to intuitive difficulties. That is exactly the case
with the concept of infinity. Accepting definitions, theorems and logical proofs is one thing.
Using the concept of infinity in various real, psychological contexts in the process of think-
ing and interpreting, is another. It is fair to suppose that the main source of difficulties
which accompany the concept of infinity is the deep contradiction between this concept
and our intellectual schemes. Genuinely built on our practical, real life experience, these
schemes are naturally adapted to finite objects and events” (Fischbein et al 1979, p. 3).
This paragraph clearly manifests the belief that there are neither alternative ways
of measuring infinity, nor even alternative to Cantor’s arithmetic of cardinal and ordinal
numbers. As a result, it is believed, that when students seek to extend laws of arithmetic of
finite numbers to the domain of infinity, their intuitions built on “practical life experience”
are on a collision course with an iceberg of “ideal, pure, final mathematical structure which
is unquestionable as a logical construct”.
Although one may think that there is a kind of necessity linking mathematical the-
orems and definitions, there is no inherent necessity regarding definitions themselves.2
Therefore, when students seek to extend laws of arithmetic of finite numbers to the do-
main of infinity, their intuitions are in conflict but with Cantor’s theory, not with any
possible theory of infinity.
In what follows, we sketch some recent mathematical theories that shed a new light
on intuitions concerning infinity. In section § 4, we also show how Euclid and Descartes
tackled with actual infinity. Since there are both modern and historical alternatives to
Cantor’s theory of infinity, a philosophical claim to the effect that there is only one
“correct” intuition of infinity finds no grounds.

2 Gödel’s Fallacy
Kurt Gödel reinforced the belief that there is no alternative to Cantor’s theory of infinite
numbers. Moreover, he claimed that when one adopts Cantor’s infinite numbers, there
is no room for an alternative arithmetic of these numbers. In (Gödel, 1947), he presents
cardinal numbers as extending the system of natural numbers (N, +, ·, 0, 1, <) and seeks
to show that “this extension can be effected in a uniquely determined manner”. To this
end, he discusses (1) definition, (2) equality, (3) total order, and (4) sums and products
of cardinal numbers.
(Ad 1) Gödel assumes that the very definition of infinite number has to be derived from
2
Sometimes it happens that a definition is founded on a theorem. Yet, it is not the case of the definitions
of infinite numebers and their arithmetic.

2
the notion of infinite set. (Ad 2, 3) He claims that “there is hardly any choice left but to
accept Cantor’s definition of equality between numbers, which can easily be extended to
a definition of ‘greater‘ and ‘less’ for infinite numbers”. Here, the equality is based on the
one-to-one correspondence, and the order builds on the subset relation. (Ad 4) Finally,
Gödel concludes: “it becomes possible to extend (again without any arbitrariness) the
arithmetical operations to infinite numbers (including sums and products with any infinite
number of terms or factors) and to prove practically all ordinary rules of computation”.
Arguably, “practically all rules” does not include compatibility of sums and products with
the order: although 2 < 3, it is not the case that 2 + ℵ0 < 3 + ℵ0 or 2 · ℵ0 < 3 · ℵ0 .
In his presentation, Gödel skips explicit reference to ordinal numbers even when he
defines alephs, though he employs ordinal numbers for indexing alephs. In this way, ordinal
numbers that could be considered as a way to reinterpret the arithmetic of cardinal
numbers, were pushed down to seemingly inferior role of indexes. In fact, a modified
arithmetic of ordinal numbers opens a new perspective on Cantor’s paradise.

2.1 Commutative Sums and Products of Infinite Numbers

In 1897, Cantor proved the so-called the normal form theorem. It states: For every ordinal
number α, there are ordinal numbers η1 , . . . , ηh , and natural numbers h, pi ∈ N such that

α = ω η1 · p1 + . . . + ω ηh · ph , where η1 > . . . > ηh .

This representation of α is unique. Moreover, it is finite, due to the assumption con-

cerning the index h. Based on this theorem, in 1906, Hessenberg introduced the so-called
normal sums and products of ordinal numbers. Namely, for

α = ω η1 · p1 + . . . + ω ηh · ph , β = ω η1 · q1 + . . . + ω ηh · qh ,

their normal sum +n and normal product ·n is defined by3

α +n β =df ω η1 · (p1 + q1 ) + . . . + ω ηh · (ph + qh ),

ω ηi +n ηj · pi qj .
X
α ·n β =df
1¬i,j¬h

Contrary to Cantor’s sums and products of ordinal numbers, normal sums and prod-
ucts are commutative and compatible with the standard order of ordinal numbers, that
is
α +n β = β +n α, α ·n β = β ·n α,
α < β ⇒ α +n γ < β +n γ, α < β ⇒ α ·n γ < β ·n γ.
Thus, the structure (Ord, +n , ·n , 0, 1, <), where Ord stands for the class of ordinal
numbers, is an abelian semigroup.
Hence, e.g. since ω = ω · 1 + 0, and 1 = ω · 0 + 1, we calculate the normal sums of
ω +n 1 and 1 +n ω as follows,

1 +n ω = (ω · 0 + 1) +n (ω · 1 + 0) = ω · (0 + 1) + 1 = ω + 1,
3
For the use of this definition, we assume that some pi or qi could equal 0.

3
 ω +n 1 = (ω · 1 + 0) +n (ω · 0 + 1) = ω · (1 + 0) + 1 = ω + 1.
Similarly, we calculate

2 ·n ω = (ω · 0 + 2) ·n (ω · 1 + 0) = ω 2 · 0 + ω · 2 + 0 = ω · 2,

ω ·n 2 = (ω · 1 + 0) ·n (ω · 0 + 2) = ω 2 · 0 + ω · 2 + 0 = ω · 2.
As is well known, in Cantor’s arithmetic the inequalities hold 1 + ω < ω + 1, and
2 · ω < ω · 2.
It can be shown that ordered field of Conway numbers, as developed in (Conway,
2001), includes the structure (Ord, +n , ·n , 0, 1, <); see (Błaszczyk & Fila, 2020). Hence,
each Cantor’s ordinal number is subject to ordered field operations, and all rules of finite
numbers, i.e. rules of an ordered field, can be applied to Cantor infinite numbers. There-
fore, in the field of Conway numbers, next to the number ω there are also numbers such
as −ω, ω/2 or the inverse of ω, that is 1/ω.

3 The Whole is Greater Than the Part

Galileo is believed to be the first who identified the seemingly paradoxical fact that the set
of even natural numbers, 2N in short, is equinumerous with the set of all natural numbers,
N. Adopting the Cantorian perspective, it is simply because these two sets are of the same
cardinality. Moreover, within the Cantorain framework, these sets are presented as a model
counterexample to the law The whole is greater than the part, where part is interpreted as
being a subset, while the relation greater-than refers to the cardinality of sets. Recently,
however, Vieri Benci and Mauro Di Nasso developed a theory in which countable sets
comply with the old Euclid’s law interpreted in such a way that part means subset, and is
greater-than refers to a new kind of infinite number called numerosities. In his approach,
numerosity(A) < numerosity(B), whenever A B; see (Benci & Di Nasso, 2019).

3.1 Numerosities
We present a simplified version of the theory of numerosities. It considers subsets of N
only. Still it exemplifies an alternative to the Cantor’s theory. Within Cantor system, every
subset of N is either a finite set or of a set with the cardinality ℵ0 . Theory developed by
Benci and Di Nasso gives the same result regarding finite sets, yet, infinite subsets of N
have a smaller numerosity than the numerosity of N.
We present numerosities as nonstandard natural numbers. By extending the system
of natural numbers via the ultrapower construction to the system of nonstandard natural
numbers, we demonstrate how numerosities measure subsets of N. Specifically, we show
that the numerosity of N is twice as big as the numerosity of the set of even natural
numbers. The extension of the system of natural numbers is placed in a broader context
of extension of the real numbers system. In both cases, we apply the same construction
called the ultrapower.

4
3.2 Ultrafilter on the set N
We start with the definition of an ultrafilter, and present some basic results concerning
ultrafilters.
Definition 1 A family of sets U ⊂ P(N) is an ultrafilter on N if (1) ∅ ∈ / U, (2) if
A, B ∈ U, then A ∩ B ∈ U, (3) if A ∈ U and A ⊂ B, then B ∈ U, (4) for each A ⊂ N,
either A or its complement N \ A belongs to U.
Take the family of sets with finite complements,

{A ⊂ N : N \ A is finite}.

This family is usually called the Fréchet filter on N. Indeed, it obviously satisfies
conditions (1)–(3) listed in the Definition 1. Note, however, that neither the set of odd
numbers nor the set of even numbers has a finite complement, hence, the Fréchet filter
is not an ultrafilter. Still, by applying the Axiom of Choice it can be extended to an
ultrafilter. In what follows, let U be a fix ultrafilter on N which extends the Fréchet filter.
Thus, we know that for every k ∈ N, the family U includes the set

N \ {0, 1, 2, ..., k},

since sets of this kind belong to the Fréchet filter. Moreover, the set N also belongs to U,
since it belongs to the Fréchet filter.
Next, due to the condition (4) of Definition (1), for any subset A of N, either A, or
N \ A belongs U. We apply this fact to prove, e.g. an equivalence (1), as explained below.
Finally, it can be shown that this proposition is true.
Theorem 1 For any subsets A1 , ..., An of N such that Ai ∩Aj = ∅, i 6= j. If ni=1 Ai ∈ U,
S

then Ai ∈ U for exactly one i such that 1 ¬ i ¬ n.

By applying this proposition, one can show that relations <∗ defined on the set R∗
and N∗ are actually total orders.

3.3 Extending the Field of Real Numbers

Here, we sketch how to extend the field of real numbers (R, +, ·, 0, 1, <) to a non-Archimedean
field of the hyperreals.4 The set R∗ is defined as the quotient class of RN with respect to
the following relation
(rn )≡(sn ) ⇔ {n ∈ N : rn = sn } ∈ U.
Thus, R∗ = RN /U .
New sums and products are defined pointwise, that is

[(rn )] +∗ [(sn )] = [(rn + sn )], [(rn )] ·∗ [(sn )] = [(rn · sn )].

New total order is defined by

[(rn )] <∗ [(sn )] ⇔ {n ∈ N : rn < sn } ∈ U.

Hence, the product and sum of hyperreals [(r1 , r2 , ...)] and [(s1 , s2 , ...)] gives [(r1 ·s1 , r2 ·
s2 , ...)], and [(r1 +s1 , r2 +s2 , ...)] respectively. The relation [(r1 , r2 , ...)] <∗ [(s1 , s2 , ...)] holds
4
For details, see (Błaszczyk, 2014), (Błaszczyk, 2016).

5
when, for example, the set {n ∈ N : rn < sn } equals N minus some finite set (though the
definition of order <∗ also includes other cases).
Standard real number, r ∈ R, is represented by the class [(r, r, r, ...)], i.e., the class of a
constant sequence (r, r, r, ...). Note that the sequence representing standard real number,
e.g. 1, can take the same value from some index on, for example
1 = [(1, 1, 1, 1...)] = [(0, 0, 1, 1, ...)].
Owing to the above definitions, we employ the same symbols for real numbers in
the standard and non-standard context; we will also employ the same symbols for sums,
products and order relation in the standard and non-standard context.
It follows from the notion of ultrafilter that the following relation holds
(1) [(rn )] 6= [(sn )] ⇔ {n ∈ N : rn 6= sn } ∈ U.
Due to this fact, we can control, e.g. an inequality such as this one [(rn )] 6= 0. This
fact, in turn, enables to show that the quotient structure is really an ordered field.
In the next section, we consider hyperreal numbers represented by sequences of natural
numbers, that is [(nj )], where (nj ) ⊂ N, for instance
(2) α = [(1, 2, 3, ...)] = [(n)].
According to the definition of product, we have
α2 = [(1, 2, 3, ...)] · [(1, 2, 3, ...)] = [(11 , 22 , 32 , ...)] = [(n2 )].
Then, the hyperreal number α2 is determined by the following equalities
α h i h i
= [(1, 2, 3, ...)] · [( 21 , 12 , 12 , ...)] = 21 , 22 , 32 , ... = n2 .
2
√
Similarly, that is point-wise, we define the hyperreal number α, namely
√ h√ √ √ i h√ i
α= 1, 2, 3, ... = n .
In a similar way, the floor function is defined, namely
j k
[(rj )] = [(brj c)].
Hence, hyperreal numbers such as
α
  j√ k
and α ,
2
are represented by sequences of natural numbers, namely
α
  hj ki j√ k hj√ ki
n
= 2
, α = n .
2
More specifically,
α
  h i hj ki
1 2 3 n
= , ,
2 2 2
, ... = 2
= [(0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, ...)].
2
Note that with natural numbers, the following equalities obtains bn2 c+ bn2 c = n or
b n2 c + b n2 c + 1 = n, depending on whether n is even or odd. Similarly, α
2
+ α
2
= α or
   
α α
2
+ 2
+ 1 = α, depending on whether the set of even numbers belongs or not to the
ultrafilter U. Yet, we skip a discussion needed to justify this claim.

6
3.4 Extending Natural Numbers
In this subsection, we apply the ultrapower construction, as explained above, to natural
numbers (N, +, ·, 0, 1, <). As a result we obtain the nonstandard (and uncountable) model
of Peano arithmetic (N∗ , +, ·, 0, 1, <). Thus, the set N∗ is the quotient class of NN with
respect to the following relation

(nj )≡(mj ) ⇔ {j ∈ N : nj = mj } ∈ U.

New sums and products are defined pointwise, new total order is defined by

[(nj )] <∗ [(mj )] ⇔ {j ∈ N : nj < mj } ∈ U.

Standard natural number, n ∈ N, is represented by the class [(n, n, n, ...)]. Like in the
case of hyperreals, we employ the same symbols for natural numbers, as well as for sums,
products and order, in the standard and non-standard context.
Again, from the fact that the Fréchet filter is the subset of U, it follows that both the
constant sequence (2, 2, 2, ...), and a sequence (nj ) which on a finite set of indexes A takes
0, and for other indexes takes 2, i.e.,
(
0, for j ∈ A,
nj =
2, for j ∈ N \ A,

represent number 2,
[(2, 2, 2, ...)] = 2 = [(nj )].
For the rest of our presentation, we call nonstandard natural numbers numerosities,
and give a special role for the number α, as defined by formula (2): we will show that α
is the numerosity of the set N.
To unify developments of this and the previous sections, we can define nonstandard
natural numbers as a subset of the set of hyperreals as follows

N∗ = {[(nj )] ∈ R∗ | {j ∈ N | nj ∈ N} ∈ U}.

It is up to the reader to decide which option he/she finds easier to follow.

3.5 How to Measure Subsets of N by Numerosities

The key role in the theory developed by Benci and Di Nasso plays the way how numerosi-
ties are ascribed to subsets of the set of natural numbers. Here is this definition.
Let A be a subset of N. We define a function ϕA : N 7→ N0 , by

(3) ϕA (n) = {a ∈ A | a ¬ n}.

Usually, the symbol X stands for the cardinal number of the set X. Here, yet, it
stands for natural number, since for any n, the set {a ∈ A | a ¬ n} is finite. Thus, we
may interpret the symbol {a ∈ A | a ¬ n} as follows “how many elements of the sets A
are less or equal to n”.

7
 Definition 2 The numerosity of the set A is the nonstandard natural number να (A)
represented by the sequence (ϕA (n)), that is

να (A) = [(ϕA (n))],

= [(ϕA (1), ϕA (2), ϕA (3), ...)].

Here are some examples. 1) Let us start with finite sets, e.g. a two–elements set
A = {k, l}, with k < l. We have,

0,

 for n < k,
ϕA (n) = 1, for k ¬ n < l,
for l ¬ n.


2,

Since for all but finite number of n we have ϕA (n) = 2, the numerosity of A equals 2,
that is να (A) = 2.
In a similar way, we obtain that numerosity of the set A = {a1 , ..., ak } equals k.
2) Now, we assign a numerosisty to the set of natural numbers N. To this end, observe
that ϕN (n) = n, for every n. Hence, the sequence (ϕN (n)) is (1, 2, 3, ...), and

να (N) = [(1, 2, 3, ...)] = α.

This fact explains the role of the index α: it is the numerosity of the set N and other
numerosities rely on this basic fact.
3) Now, let us calculate the numerosity of the set of even numbers 2N = {2, 4, 6, ...}.
One can easily figure our the first terms of the sequence (ϕ2N (n)). These are as follows

ϕ2N (1) = 0, ϕ2N (2) = 1, ϕ2N (3) = 1, ϕ2N (4) = 2, ϕ2N (5) = 2, ...

Thus, (ϕ2N (n)) = (0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, ...), and, finally

α
 
ϕα (2N) = [(0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, ...)] = .
2
4) Finally, by induction, we could we prove the general rule

(4) A B ⇒ να (A) < να (B).

According to Benci and Di Nasso, it justifies the old law The whole is greater than the
part, even when applied to infinite sets. In fact, rule (4) applies to subsets of the set N.
Still, the domain of numerosities can be extended to the subsets of real numbers.

4 The Ancient Greek and Early Modern

Concept of Infinity
Among the historians and philosophers of mathematics prevails the view that it was
Cantor who developed the first mathematical account of infinity. Fischbein reiterates that
opinion by writing:

8
 Figure 1: Euclid’s Optics, Proposition 2 (left), and its modern counterpart (right)

“It is fair to suppose that the main source of difficulties which accompany the concept
of infinity is the deep contradiction between this concept and our intellectual schemes.
Genuinely built on our practical, real life experience, these schemes are naturally adapted
to finite objects and events. The first solution to that contradiction was to admit, as
Aristotle did, that infinity expresses, in fact, only a pure potentiality, i.e., the non-limited
possibility to increase an interval or to divide it. It was that interpretation of infinity as
a potentiality, which dominated mathematics until the Cantorian revolution” (Fischbein
et al, 1979, p. 3).
Yet, there was a long tradition of geometrical optics that applied actual infinity as a
mathematical tool. It originated from Euclid’s Optics, then, was modified by Islamic and
Medieval tradition, and was developed further in Kepler’s Paralipomena, and Descartes’
Dioptrics. Below we present two samples of how mathematicians tackled with the actual
infinity within that tradition.

4.1 Euclid and the actual infinity

In the ancient Greek optics, infinities were compared in terms of the relation greater-than,
and they were also treated as terms of proportions. Hence, in a way, they were divided.
According to Euclid’s theory of vision, an object is seen due to visual rays which scan
the object. Implicitly, there have to be infinitely many such rays. On Figure 1, an observer’s
eye is represented by the point B, lines KL, CD are “equal and parallel objects”. By the
assumption, rays fall on objects represented by KL and CD, lines KL, CD are equal, and
CD is “nearer to the eye”. Still, Euclid claims that CD “is seen by more rays coming of
the eye than” KL. Here, and in the propositions that follow, these infinities of rays are
measured by appropriate angles; to be more precise, a ratio of infinities is measured by a
ratio of some angles.
The ratio of infinitely many rays falling upon CD, on the one hand, and infinitely
many rays falling upon KL, and on the other hand, is proportional to the ratio of angles

9
 Figure 2: Descartes’ Dioptrics, p. 21.

CBD and KBL.5 We can render it by the following formula

∞CD : ∞KL :: ∠CBD : ∠KBL.

A small modification of Euclid’s diagram, results in a modern proof of the fact that
every two line segments are equinumerous, as presented by the right side of Figure 1. But
there is a crucial difference concerning the concept of line segment in the ancient Greek
and modern mathematics. In the 19th century, it was explicitly stated that line segments
consist of points. In the ancient Greek optics, it was an implicit assumption; in the ancient
Greek geometry, line did not consist of points; in the ancient philosophy, this claim was
a moot point.

4.2 Descartes and the actual infinity

It was a dogma of the 17th century optics that light propagates with infinite velocity.
Still, the velocity differed depending on a medium of propagation. Consequently, there
was a scale of infinite velocities. Moreover, Descartes faultily believed that light propagates
faster in water or glass than in air. Nevertheless, he could establish the ratio of these two
infinities to derive the law of refraction. To follow his arguments, let us start with the
modern version of this law.
In modern optics, the refraction law is the following formula6
sin θi vi
(5) = ,
sin θt vt
where θi and θt are angles of incidence and refraction of a ray of light respectively, vi and
vt stand for the velocity of light in the incident and transmitted medium. Thus, firstly,
the ratio sin θi /sin θt is constant. Descartes addressed this issue in the Second Discourse
of his 1637’s Dioptrics.
5
English translations of Euclid’s Optics after (Burton, 1945).
6
Here, like in a Descartes’ model, we consider rays of light rather than waves.

10
 Figure 2 depicts rays of light, ABI, KBL, and PRS, passing from air to glass. In the
Second Discourse, through some rare speculations, Descartes came to the conclusion that
the refraction could be measured by a proportion of some line segments, namely

AH : GI :: KM : N L.

Throughout Dioptrics, Descartes applied the ancient Greek technique of proportion,

therefore, his proportions needed two ratios, and the measure of refraction could not be
rendered such as AH : GI = constant. Hence, the only way to establish a constant
measure was to consider line segments referring to two rays, such as

AH : GI :: KM : N L, AH : GI :: P Q : T S, KM : N L :: P Q : T S.

Secondly, Descartes also addressed a problem how to determine a refracted ray when
the angle of incidence is known. In modern optics, the fraction vi /vt is determined by
means of experiments, then sin θt follows from (5). Descartes, managed to determine a
ratio of two infinite velocities, for instance, the velocity of light in air and the velocity
of light in glass, ∞a , ∞g in short. Due to a tricky instrument described in the Ninth
Discourse, he could determine, also by an experiment, a ratio of two segments, say a, b,
which played a similar role to the ratio vi /vt in the modern formula, namely

AH : GI :: a : b, KM : N L :: a : b, P Q : T S :: a : b.

Therefore, when AH is given, and a, b are determined by the experiment, a line seg-
ment, say X, which determines a refracted ray, will follow from the proportion AH : X :: a : b.
To sum up, despite velocities of light in air and in glass were considered to be infinite,
their ratio was measured by a ratio of some finite line segments such as

∞a : ∞g :: a : b.

Summary We argued that although students intuitions may not fit to Cantor’s theory,
there are new theories that match these intuitions. While Cantor’s arithmetic of infinite
numbers hardly mimics the arithmetic of finite numbers, these new theories comply with
the rules of a commutative ordered field, that is, the rules of finite arithmetic, or the Eu-
clid’s law The whole is greater than the part. Thus, it is possible that modern mathematics
provides theories of infinity more intuitive than Cantor’s theory of cardinal and ordinal
numbers.
Our short historical review aimed to buttress the claim that various intuitions of actual
infinity had been mathematised long before Cantor developed his theory.

References
[1] Benci,V., Di Nasso, M. (2019). How to Measure the Infinite. Mathematics with Infinite
and Infinitesimal Numbers. World Scientific. New Jersey.

[2] Błaszczyk, P. (2016). A Purely Algebraic Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Al-
gebra. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia ad Didacticam Math-
ematicae Pertinentia VIII, 6–22.

11
[3] Błaszczyk, P., Fila, M. (2020). Cantor on Infinitesimals. Historical and Modern Per-
spective. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 49(2), 1–32.

[4] Błaszczyk, P., Major, J. (2014). Calculus without the Concept of Limit. Annales Uni-
versitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia ad Didacticam Mathematicae Pertinentia
VI, 19–38

[5] Burton, H.E. (1945). The Optics of Euclid. Journal of the Optical Society of America
35(5), 357–372.

[6] Cantor, G. (1932). Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen

Inhalts. Springer. Berlin.

[7] Cantor, G. (1897). Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre. In: (Cantor,
1932), 312–351.

[8] Conway, J.H. (2001). On Numbers and Games. AK Peters. Natick.

[9] Descartes, R. (1637). Discours de la Méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher
la vérité dans les sciences, plus la Dioptrique, les Météores, et la Géométrie, qui sont
des essais de cete Méthode. Jan Marire, Leiden

[10] Fischbein, E., Tirosh, D., Hess, P. (1979). The Intuition of Infinity. Educational Stud-
ies in Mathematics 10, 3–40.

[11] Gödel, K. (1947). What is Cantor’s Continuum Problem? The American Mathemat-
ical Monthly, 54(9), 515–525.

[12] Hecht, E. (2002). Optics. Addison Wesley, San Francisco.

[13] Hessenberg, G. (1906). Grunbegriffe der Mengenlehre. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Got-
tingen.

[14] Heiberg, J.L., Menge, H. (1895). Euclidis Opera Omnia. Vol VIII. Taubneri. Lipsiae.

[15] Smith, M. (1999). Ptolemy and the Foundations of Acient Mathematical Optics.
American Philosophical Society, Philadelfia.

[16] Olscamp, P. (2001). René Descartes Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and
Meterology. Hackett Publishing Company, Indainapolis.

12