 Blackburn responds to the finitude problem by pointing out that familiar dispositional properties (such as fragility) are in a sense infinitary: “there is an infinite number of places and times and strikings and surfaces on which it could be displayed” (1984 [2002: 35]). If a glass has infinitary dispositions, perhaps a human does too, and perhaps this will yield an extended disposition that covers the case of queries involving inaccessible numbers. Even though we have no way of getting an ordinary glass to Alpha Centauri (it would decay long before it got there), we can think of it as possessing an extended disposition to break there: breaking is what the glass would be disposed to do were its dispositions on earth allowed to manifest themselves on Alpha Centauri. Likewise, even though Jones has no disposition to answer queries involving inaccessible numbers, responding with the sum is what Jones would be disposed to do were her dispositions in accessible cases allowed to manifest themselves in inaccessible cases. This would in turn allow us to say that the answer that she would accept in those cases is “the one that would be given by reiterating procedures [Jones is] disposed to use, a number of times” (1984 [2002: 35]).