The point is that an infinite set may be closed, as between .9 and 1, where the terms .9+.09+.009 are the members of the set. That this series can be interpreted as an infinitely divisible set, (by definition), has no linguistic barrier, that declares that such a proposal is logically unsound. Between logic and language there is this unassailable affinity.
On the other hand, the same set is bounded , by 0, and infinity, an infinity which again is a conceptual bind, vis: where the bind is the antimony, or the contradiction within it’s own meaning structure.
For instance, the infinite is contradicted by the finite, there can not be a definitionally infinite, without the positing of the finite structures abiding within the structure of language it’self.
Now comes the usual critique as to the reality of the logic of language, as it corresponds to reality. Does it?
Does language create reality, or conversely does reality create language? Or, does it really matter, or even make sense to pose this question in such terms?
Linguists would say that it is language and logic which need to correspond to reality, and I don’t think they say anything else, or whether it matters at all which takes precedence.
Why? Because of the spational -temporal relativity, but that is a conclusion, and sorrily, I have to argue backwards, and if you do, you have to come to view spational relationships as formative. I really do not want to get into this , though, because of a belief in the intuitive basis of math, is as suspect as it is esoteric, almost borderline occult.