> Ok, an irrational number of dollars is pushing it a bit, but you don't need to go that far to see that infinity doesn't work when trying to count things consi

> Ok, an irrational number of dollars is pushing it a bit, but you don't need to go that far to see that infinity doesn't work when trying to count things consistently. Well, if your definition doesn't work for irrational numbers, then your argument isn't good enough: you exclude infinity on criteria that also exclude "good" numbers. In the context of the article, π is a number. And you cannot count things with an irrational number,　by definition.