Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Interesting Numbers
Message-ID: <1517@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 7-May-84 17:49:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.1517
Posted: Mon May  7 17:49:02 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 11-May-84 07:24:22 EDT
References: <1279@uvacs.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 8

I posted an elaboration on my claim that the "proof" that there are
no uninteresting numbers is invalid.  The main point is that the "proof"
is equivalent to a well-known "paradox" (antinomy really) in mathematical
logic and is due to sloppy use of set theory.  The resolution of the
antinomy has been attempted through everything from the "Theory of Types"
to basing set theory on categories instead.  This is a deeper issue than
it at first appears to be.
			-- gwyn@brl-vld.ARPA