 We’ve followed Boghossian (2015) in setting up the finitude problem as fundamentally a problem about determinacy. In a recent paper, Jared Warren admits that solving the finitude problem, thus construed, turns on solving the error problem (2020: 268), and proceeds to offer an attempted solution to that problem. Consider the following proposal: the fact which constitutes Jones’s meaning addition by ‘+’ is the fact that, when faced with arithmetical queries involving the ‘+’ sign, Jones is stably disposed to reply with the sum in the overwhelming majority of normal  situations.[12]  What are normal situations, and what is it for a disposition to be stable? Normal situations are those in which neither external nor internal factors are interfering with Jones’s general cognitive functioning. More specifically, the normal situations are those in which Jones is clearheaded—situations in which the air is not permeated with mind-bending chemicals, in which Jones is not drunk, exhausted, or badly hungover, so that neither external causes nor internal causes are interfering with her cognitive performance. Furthermore, to say that Jones’s disposition to respond with the sum is stable is to say that, as the number of arithmetical queries she has faced increases, the ratio of answers that give something other than the sum to answers that give the sum tends towards zero. And to keep the bar relatively low, we don’t require that in normal conditions it is metaphysically impossible for Jones to answer with something other than the sum. We only require that, when such conditions obtain, it is rational to be nearly certain that she will answer with the sum. Call the disposition which we have described here disp. disp corresponds to the meaning-constituting dispositions that Warren proposes as offering a solution to the error problem. The proposal is intended to be reductive. Warren notes that “normalcy”, defined as he defines it, “isn’t semantic or intentional or otherwise problematically question-begging” (2020: 271).