4 ms·

Not to sound corny but if you really think about it every single day is rare, just in different ways.

susam 7y ago
Reminds me of the interesting number paradox[1]. This can be easily extended to dates too in this manner: Every date is interesting. Proof by contradiction: If there exists a non-empty set of uninteresting dates, there would be an earliest date in this set. But the earliest such date is itself interesting because it is the earliest uninteresting date, thus producing a contradiction. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
- mmhsieh 7y ago
  there has got to be a better objective method to define interesting numbers other than inclusion in a number sequence compendium. perhaps if we hypothesize that there are a (countably) infinite number of number theoretic theorems, might every number be either a unique case or the largest or the smallest example of some instance?
- Retric 7y ago
  There is no largest or smallest real number. Therefore a set without a largest or smallest member is not necessarily empty. Alternatively, being the smallest in the set of uninteresting numbers does not make a number interesting, at best it is unique like every other number and therefore uninteresting.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    Not true of dates though, since you can set hard bounds at the big bang (or whatever) and the heat death of the universe.
    - _morgs_ 7y ago
      So the universe creates time?
      - dkersten 7y ago
        Yes. After the heat death, nothing will ever move or change and so it the universe will remain in a frozen state. Time will have stopped. Sine time is relative based on the observer and observed, if neither change in any way (no “work” happened and no information is exchanged, even on the level of fundamental particles (or fields/loops/strings or whatever happens to be at the bottom)), for every possible combination of observer and observer, then time has not advanced in any meaningful sense.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - marcosdumay 7y ago
      You don't need both bounds anyway. A countable set without a lower bound in any representation is already a paradox.
  - fortran90 7y ago
    > There is no largest or smallest real number. The interesting number paradox applies to natural numbers, not real numbers. > Alternatively, being the smallest in the set of uninteresting numbers does not make a number interesting You are taking this too seriously. :-) Everyone would agree that "interesting" is subjective. This is supposed to be a humorous paradox, not a mathematical fact!
    - Retric 7y ago
      That was meant to be humorous, however dates are not natural numbers.
      - datanerd 7y ago
        It is obvious that dates are not natural numbers. What is your point? A set of dates obviously has an earliest date. The humour here is that an earliest date within the set of uninteresting dates is itself an interesting date by virtue of being the earliest such date in that set.
        Retric 7y ago
        > A set of dates obviously has an earliest date. Uhh, no you’re thinking in terms of a finite set. From the set of all dates, what’s the latest possible date, or conversely the earliest possible date. The temptation is to say infinite BC is the earliest possible date, but infinity is not a number.
        datanerd 7y ago
        But there is no infinite BC, right? There cannot be any date earlier than the date of the big bang. That establishes a lower bound for the set of dates, does it not?
        Retric 7y ago
        The Big Bang is an apparent discontinuity, but we have no idea if a universe existed before this one. Alternatively, multiple universes could exist and those alternate universes could be much older. So at least theoretically things much older than our universe could exist.
ph2082 7y ago
Yes. I know. I Know. But you can't cut cake everyday. Need to make up some reason.

Reminds me of the interesting number paradox[1]. This can be easily extended to dates too in this manner: Every date is interesting. Proof by contradiction: If there exists a non-empty set of uninteresting dates, there would be an earliest date in this set. But the earliest such date is itself interesting because it is the earliest uninteresting date, thus producing a contradiction. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox

mmhsieh 7y ago
there has got to be a better objective method to define interesting numbers other than inclusion in a number sequence compendium. perhaps if we hypothesize that there are a (countably) infinite number of number theoretic theorems, might every number be either a unique case or the largest or the smallest example of some instance?
Retric 7y ago
There is no largest or smallest real number. Therefore a set without a largest or smallest member is not necessarily empty. Alternatively, being the smallest in the set of uninteresting numbers does not make a number interesting, at best it is unique like every other number and therefore uninteresting.
- TylerE 7y ago
  Not true of dates though, since you can set hard bounds at the big bang (or whatever) and the heat death of the universe.
  - _morgs_ 7y ago
    So the universe creates time?
    - dkersten 7y ago
      Yes. After the heat death, nothing will ever move or change and so it the universe will remain in a frozen state. Time will have stopped. Sine time is relative based on the observer and observed, if neither change in any way (no “work” happened and no information is exchanged, even on the level of fundamental particles (or fields/loops/strings or whatever happens to be at the bottom)), for every possible combination of observer and observer, then time has not advanced in any meaningful sense.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcosdumay 7y ago
    You don't need both bounds anyway. A countable set without a lower bound in any representation is already a paradox.
- fortran90 7y ago
  > There is no largest or smallest real number. The interesting number paradox applies to natural numbers, not real numbers. > Alternatively, being the smallest in the set of uninteresting numbers does not make a number interesting You are taking this too seriously. :-) Everyone would agree that "interesting" is subjective. This is supposed to be a humorous paradox, not a mathematical fact!
  - Retric 7y ago
    That was meant to be humorous, however dates are not natural numbers.
    - datanerd 7y ago
      It is obvious that dates are not natural numbers. What is your point? A set of dates obviously has an earliest date. The humour here is that an earliest date within the set of uninteresting dates is itself an interesting date by virtue of being the earliest such date in that set.
      - Retric 7y ago
        > A set of dates obviously has an earliest date. Uhh, no you’re thinking in terms of a finite set. From the set of all dates, what’s the latest possible date, or conversely the earliest possible date. The temptation is to say infinite BC is the earliest possible date, but infinity is not a number.
        datanerd 7y ago
        But there is no infinite BC, right? There cannot be any date earlier than the date of the big bang. That establishes a lower bound for the set of dates, does it not?
        Retric 7y ago
        The Big Bang is an apparent discontinuity, but we have no idea if a universe existed before this one. Alternatively, multiple universes could exist and those alternate universes could be much older. So at least theoretically things much older than our universe could exist.

ph2082 7y ago

Yes. I know. I Know. But you can't cut cake everyday. Need to make up some reason.