Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mwg
From: mwg@allegra.UUCP (Mark Garrett)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Interesting number proof invalid
Message-ID: <2457@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-May-84 09:25:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.2457
Posted: Mon May  7 09:25:56 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 8-May-84 00:15:02 EDT
References: <7672@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 12

The problem with using induction here is that the assignment of the
'interesting' property to a number is not independent of whether
other numbers share this property.  If a number A is interesting
because it is the least (previously) uninteresting number and
a larger number B is declared interesting for the same reason, then
A has lost its interest, hasn't it?

This has a (slightly) interesting (no pun) connexion to a race-around
condition in flip-flops.

Mark Garrett
BCR, Murray Hill