3 ms·

Doesn't that just mean the least interesting number definitely exists but is simply unknowable?

puzzledobserver 4y ago
Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways to resolve the paradox: 1. Reject the intuitive definition of "interesting"ness as being ill-formed. We need an objective definition non-self-referential definition of the word interesting. 2. Accept that there are interesting or uninteresting numbers, but their status as objects of interest is tied to a specific time. For example, 1729 might have been an uninteresting number until the conversation between Ramanujan and Hardy. Several of the examples on the Wikipedia page have such temporal limits on when they were / were not interesting.
beowulfey 4y ago
I would instead say it has more to do with “interestingness” being an impermanent quality. As an odd extension of this idea (I don’t know of an English equivalent), if this were Spanish we would probably use “estar” instead of “ser” to affix the description.
- PeterCorless 4y ago
  As someone who lives and breathes social media and Google trends, "interestingness" is something that has both trend and stochastic event-driven temporality. Example: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2022-01-01%202022-05-27&q=Ukraine,Will%20Smith https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2022-01-01%202... There was interest in "Ukraine" at a certain background level until events in January 2022 began an increase of interest. Then the invasion in February drove it through the roof. Interest in Google Trends peaked specifically on 24 Feb 2022. However, after the initial invasion, interest steadily and rapidly waned. By 24 Mar, interest had waned to 10% of its invasion peak. By 24 April, 5% of that peak. And 3% by 24 May. So "Ukraine" interest is still 3-4x times its pre-war baseline (2021 trend line), but it is 1/25th to 1/33rd of peak interest near the start of the invasion. And, due to a specific awards show incident, interest in Ukraine was eclipsed by searches on "Will Smith" centered around 27-28 Mar 2022. That interest did not peak as high as the peak interest in "Ukraine," and was even more ephemeral. By 02 Apr 2022 interest in Will Smith fell below that of interest in "Ukraine." And now interest in that individual has basically resumed to its pre-stochastic event baseline. Interest in topics is not only temporal, it is also geographical and social. Interest may rise (or fall) in certain countries or states or even cities. Or its locus may be based on virtual communities other social reference groups. "Marvel" or "Star Wars" fans might be hyped by certain news, and interest can spike amongst them, while only having peripheral interest in other social reference groups or amongst the general public and popular culture.
colechristensen 4y ago
No, interesting is a value judgement which is easy until it gets hard, an exact quantitative measure of interest is impossible as what is interesting is, to a degree, a matter of opinion.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways to resolve the paradox: 1. Reject the intuitive definition of "interesting"ness as being ill-formed. We need an objective definition non-self-referential definition of the word interesting. 2. Accept that there are interesting or uninteresting numbers, but their status as objects of interest is tied to a specific time. For example, 1729 might have been an uninteresting number until the conversation between Ramanujan and Hardy. Several of the examples on the Wikipedia page have such temporal limits on when they were / were not interesting.

beowulfey 4y ago

I would instead say it has more to do with “interestingness” being an impermanent quality. As an odd extension of this idea (I don’t know of an English equivalent), if this were Spanish we would probably use “estar” instead of “ser” to affix the description.

PeterCorless 4y ago
As someone who lives and breathes social media and Google trends, "interestingness" is something that has both trend and stochastic event-driven temporality. Example: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2022-01-01%202022-05-27&q=Ukraine,Will%20Smith https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2022-01-01%202... There was interest in "Ukraine" at a certain background level until events in January 2022 began an increase of interest. Then the invasion in February drove it through the roof. Interest in Google Trends peaked specifically on 24 Feb 2022. However, after the initial invasion, interest steadily and rapidly waned. By 24 Mar, interest had waned to 10% of its invasion peak. By 24 April, 5% of that peak. And 3% by 24 May. So "Ukraine" interest is still 3-4x times its pre-war baseline (2021 trend line), but it is 1/25th to 1/33rd of peak interest near the start of the invasion. And, due to a specific awards show incident, interest in Ukraine was eclipsed by searches on "Will Smith" centered around 27-28 Mar 2022. That interest did not peak as high as the peak interest in "Ukraine," and was even more ephemeral. By 02 Apr 2022 interest in Will Smith fell below that of interest in "Ukraine." And now interest in that individual has basically resumed to its pre-stochastic event baseline. Interest in topics is not only temporal, it is also geographical and social. Interest may rise (or fall) in certain countries or states or even cities. Or its locus may be based on virtual communities other social reference groups. "Marvel" or "Star Wars" fans might be hyped by certain news, and interest can spike amongst them, while only having peripheral interest in other social reference groups or amongst the general public and popular culture.

colechristensen 4y ago

No, interesting is a value judgement which is easy until it gets hard, an exact quantitative measure of interest is impossible as what is interesting is, to a degree, a matter of opinion.