"I'm not clear on what
@epenguin point is trying to make." jim-mcnamara.Reference
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/useful-negation-of-a-statement.968671/#post-6151458
My point that just saying another word is not adding anything of substance, therefore not really useful as the question asked.
You have a word, and you introduce a new word, and you say they mean the same thing.If that is useful, it is a statement only useful about the new word not the thing. Useful to someone who had never heard the second word. Limited usefulness because the formation of the word follows a generally known convention of the language for forming new words, so most people could get there anyway.
I thought, well I know, we all know, what finite means... er, do we? I mean it is one thing to be able to easily recognise examples, another to say how, what the definition is. Better brush it up. E.g. here -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_set . Yes that is what I thought it was, at first, further down it gets complicated. But at least this seems to offer a way. The indication of how to decide whether something is finite or not, that is what I would think can get us to a
useful definition.
That could be enough to be going on with.
(Then since we are into very fundamental but yet very theoretical things, I have allowed a certain Wildberger to sow some reservations in my mind about the 'in principle' mentioned in the second sentence of that link. I understand him to say that there "are" finite numbers that not only you couldn't count in practice but
in principle you couldn't count in practice, there can be no way to even name them, therefore they, and perhaps the definition, don't mean anything. But I believe his are minority opinions and anyway this is well beyond my normal scientific range and competences so just sayin'.)