 Like the other two arguments, the primary goal of the Mapping Argument is to show that no infinite continuous magnitude actually exists. Having read Euclid’s Elements (bks 7–9), Muslim thinkers knew that numbers could be easily represented by magnitudes. Therefore, any argument for the impossibility of infinite magnitudes can be taken as an argument against the infinity of numbers. But how about infinite collections? None of the three arguments is directly applicable to infinite collections of discrete entities. Nevertheless, it has been argued that Avicenna was likely aware that the Mapping Argument could be modified so that it is applicable to infinite collections of discrete numbered things (Zarepour 2020b: sec. 4). The sizes of two collections of discrete entities can be compared by employing the very notion of ‘mapping’ that we previously used in the case of continuous magnitudes. However, in the case of the collections of discrete entities, this notion must be cashed out in terms of one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two collections in question. Two collections of discrete entities correspond to each other if every member of one collection can be paired with one (and only one) member of the other so that no member of any of these collections remains unpaired. Avicenna seems to have been aware that an infinite collection of discrete entities can be put in one-to-one correspondence with some of its proper subcollections. And he finds this as absurd as the correspondence of an infinite magnitude with its proper submagnitude. He explicitly mentions that the Mapping Argument can rule out the possibilities of both infinite magnitudes and infinite collections of discrete entities (e.g., numbers and numbered things). However, he does not himself make it explicit how this argument actually works in the case of discrete things. He does not provide any concrete example of the application of the Mapping Argument to the case of the infinite collections of objects. Such an example can be found in the works of post-Avicennian philosophers like Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (Sharḥ ʿUyun al-ḥikma, al-Ṭabīʿīyāt [1994: 53]). Al-Ghazālī (d. 1111) has mentioned the Mapping Argument in his Maqāṣid ([2000: 97–98]) and the earliest transmission of this argument to the Latin tradition is probably through the Latin translation of Maqāṣid in the third quarter of the twelfth century.