Cantors definition of Infinity relies on SRH

Infinity is not a number. It is the number of numbers.

So we have the idea of counting. 5 Sheep, 10 fingers etc. Let us call this method c(x) = number of x so that c(sheep in this field) = 5. c(appendages to my hands) = 10.

Now what if we do an SRH: c(numbers) = ?

The answer CANNOT be a number by SRH. So when we apply c() not to an element of its domain, or even an element of its range, but rather to its whole range the result cannot be in the range! It is called infinity. But infinity I'm suggesting is just the result of the super general SRH, rather than something unique to numbers. Or vice-versa infinity is an excellent example of the super general SRH.

Now why is it that if we have 2 sets X,Y with elements {x1,x2,...xn} and {y1,y2,...yn} and a function f such that

f(xi) -> yi

f(Y) if it exists -/> Y

it implies that Y must be a member of itself.

So that the counting numbers themselves can be counted. But the result is not a counting number! Isn't there a contradiction here?

{all counting numbers n} = N
e, in set of
-e, not in set of

X = {set of things x}
c = give count/cardinality of x

c(x e X) e N

if N e X

c(N e X) -e N  (by SRH)

but N e X contradicts c(x e N) e N !!!!!!!