[50] _Mathematical Discourses concerning two new sciences relating to mechanics and local motion, in four dialogues._ By Galileo Galilei, Chief Philosopher and Mathematician to the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Done into English from the Italian, by Tho. Weston, late Master, and now published by John Weston, present Master, of the Academy at Greenwich. See pp. 46 ff. The way in which the problem is expounded in the above discussion is worthy of Galileo, but the solution suggested is not the right one. It is actually the case that the number of square (finite) numbers is the same as the number of (finite) numbers. The fact that, so long as we confine ourselves to numbers less than some given finite number, the proportion of squares tends towards zero as the given finite number increases, does not contradict the fact that the number of all finite squares is the same as the number of all finite numbers. This is only an instance of the fact, now familiar to mathematicians, that the _limit_ of a function as the variable _approaches_ a given point may not be the same as its _value_ when the variable actually _reaches_ the given point. But although the infinite numbers which Galileo discusses are equal, Cantor has shown that what Simplicius could not conceive is true, namely, that there are an infinite number of different infinite numbers, and that the conception of _greater_ and _less_ can be perfectly well applied to them. The whole of Simplicius's difficulty comes, as is evident, from his belief that, if _greater_ and _less_ can be applied, a part of an infinite collection must have fewer terms than the whole; and when this is denied, all contradictions disappear. As regards greater and less lengths of lines, which is the problem from which the above discussion starts, that involves a meaning of _greater_ and _less_ which is not arithmetical. The number of points is the same in a long line and in a short one, being in fact the same as the number of points in all space. The _greater_ and _less_ of metrical geometry involves the new metrical conception of _congruence_, which cannot be developed out of arithmetical considerations alone. But this question has not the fundamental importance which belongs to the arithmetical theory of infinity. (2) _Non-inductiveness._--The second property by which infinite numbers are distinguished from finite numbers is the property of non-inductiveness. This will be best explained by defining the positive property of inductiveness which characterises the finite numbers, and which is named after the method of proof known as "mathematical induction."