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!harpo!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Interesting Numbers
Message-ID: <1806@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 11-May-84 07:28:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.1806
Posted: Fri May 11 07:28:56 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 11:43:53 EDT
References: <1279@uvacs.UUCP>, <1517@brl-vgr.ARPA>, <7715@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 6

Your set-theoretic proof is, of course, a formalization of the usual
argument that all numbers are interesting.  Then how do you account
for the fact that 23 is totally dull (or it was, until I mentioned
it :-) ?  The key is that Axiom (iii) (the least-element is interesting)
must somehow be excluded from the definition of interesting if the
concept is to have non-trivial meaning.  How is this to be done?