Burali-Forti has given another demonstration.[16] But he is obliged to assume two postulates: First, there always exists at least one infinite class. The second is thus expressed:
u[epsilon]K(K - [iota][Lambda]) · [inverted c] · u < v'u.
The first postulate is not more evident than the principle to be proved. The second not only is not evident, but it is false, as Whitehead has shown; as moreover any recruit would see at the first glance, if the axiom had been stated in intelligible language, since it means that the number of combinations which can be formed with several objects is less than the number of these objects.
[16] In his article 'Le classi finite,' _Atti di Torino_, Vol. XXXII.
