(The latter statement holds because for any given n, the set X_n of all strings of length n is finite. So you can count the members of X_0, then count the members of X_1, and so on, and by continuing on in that way you'll eventually count out all members of X. You never run out of numbers to assign to the next set because at each point the set of numbers you've already assigned is finite (it's smaller in size than X_0, ..., X_n combined, for some n).
In fact, even if you allow countably infinitely many phonemes to be used, the X_n sets will still be countable, if not finite, and in that case their union is still countable: to see that, you can take enumerations of each set put them together as columns an a matrix. Even though the matrix is infinite in both dimensions, it has finite diagonals, so you can enumerate its cells by going a diagonal at a time, like this (the numbers reflect the cells' order in the numeration):
1 3 6 10 15
2 5 9 14
4 8 13
7 12
11
I even provide the definition of countable infinity in my counterargument without realising it, though maybe that too is a misunderstanding.
That just increases the fraction of text files that count as "English". Which doesn't affect the argument.
> the question of whether or not language is finite
does not need to be answered. If English has a thousand words and never gains another one, the list of English sentences is countably infinite. If English gains 10% more words every year forever, the list of English sentences is still countably infinite.
Is it? Where can I read a proof? I have a feeling it’s uncountable set but would be happy to see a proof one way or another.