We understand from our infinite related science history that in present classical infinite related science system, it has been admitted that the concept of infinite is composed by both “potential infinite” and “actual infinite”. On the one hand, no one is able to deny the qualitative differences and the important roles “potential infinite--actual infinite” play in the foundation of present classical infinite theory system; on the other hand, no one is able to deny that the present classical set theory is basing on “potential infinite--actual infinite” concepts as well as its related whole present classical infinite theory system. The fact is: any areas in present classical infinite related science system (of cause including present classical mathematical analysis and set theory) can not run away from the constraining of “potential infinite--actual infinite” concepts-------all the contents in present classical mathematical analysis and set theory can only be existing in the forms of “potential infinite mathematical things” and “actual infinite mathematical things”. But, the studies of our infinite related science history have proved that no clear definitions for these two concepts of “potential infinite--actual infinite” and their relating “potential infinite mathematical things--actual infinite mathematical things” have ever been given since antiquity, thus naturally lead to following two unavoidable fatal defects in present classical set theory:

（1）theoretically: It is impossible to understand what the important basic concepts of “potential infinite” and “actual infinite” and their relating “potential infinite number forms, potential infinite sets” and “actual infinite number forms, actual infinite sets” are and what kinds of relationship among them are. So, in many “qualitative cognizing activities on infinite relating mathematical things (such as all kinds of infinite sets, elements in infinite sets, numbers of elements in infinite sets)” in present classical set theory, many people even don’t know or actually deny the being of “potential infinite” and “actual infinite” concepts as well as their relating “potential infinite number form, potential infinite sets” and “actual infinite number forms, actual infinite sets”--------it is impossible at all to understand clearly and scientifically the exact relationship among the important basic concepts of “infinite, infinities, infinite many, infinitesimals, infinite sets, elements in infinite sets, numbers of elements in infinite sets”, ... So, it is impossible at all to understand clearly and scientifically all kinds of different infinite sets (such as lacking of the “’set spectrum’ for the overall qualitative cognitions on the existing forms of infinite sets”), elements in an infinite set (such as ”are the infinite related elements potential infinite mathematical things or actual infinite mathematical things, how they exist?”), numbers of elements in an infinite set (such as ”are they actual infinite many or potential infinite many?”), the “one-to-one corresponding theory and operation” in infinite sets (such as ”are the potential infinite elements corresponding to potential infinite elements or actual infinite elements corresponding to actual infinite elements or actual infinite elements corresponding to potential infinite elements?”) ,... --------the unavoidable defects of qualitative cognition on infinite sets and their elements

（2）operationally: First, it is impossible to understand whether the “elements in an infinite set, numbers of elements in an infinite set and all kinds of infinite sets” being cognized in present classical set theory are “potential infinite mathematical things” or “actual infinite mathematical things”, whether there are different theories and operations for “potential infinite mathematical things or actual infinite mathematical things”, and it is impossible at all to understand correctly (scientifically) in present classical set theory the natures of infinite related quantitative cognizing theories and tools (such as limit theory and the “one-to-one corresponding theory”) and their operational scientificities-------- it is impossible at all to master correctly (scientifically) the operational competences and skills of limit theory and the “one-to-one corresponding theory” thus resulting in no scientific guarantee for the operations of limit theory and the “one-to-one corresponding theory”; second, it is impossible at all to judge the scientificities of many infinite related quantitative cognizing activities in present classical set theory, people in many cases can only parrot every bit of what have been done by others or do as one wishes to treat many “not—knowing—what” infinite mathematical things with the unified way of “flow line” (any “infinite sets”, “elements of an infinite set”, “elements’ number of an infinite set” can either be “potential infinite” or “actual infinite”, neither be “potential infinite” nor “actual infinite”, first “potential infinite” then “actual infinite”, first “actual infinite” then “potential infinite”, ,,,), those believed and accepted Russell’s Paradox, Hilbert Hotel Paradox, Cantor’s operations of “cutting an infinite thing into pieces to make super infinite numbers with different grades” as well as the famous “using Russell's ‘paradox constructing mechanism’ to prove the Power Set Theorem and the uncountability of real number set” are typical examples of “potential infinite--actual infinite” confusing operations--------the unavoidable defects of quantitative cognition on infinite sets and their elements.