3 ms·
I’m not a mathematician but I wonder why the Lowest Uninteresting Number paradox can’t be resolved by simply adjusting the definition of “interesting”? After al
by pavlov 4y ago
I’m not a mathematician but I wonder why the Lowest Uninteresting Number paradox can’t be resolved by simply adjusting the definition of “interesting”? After all that’s a purely human concept. If we say a number isn’t interesting simply due to its proximity to other interesting numbers, then we can draw the boundary.
It seems a bit like making a list of important cities. Borders are very important to countries, but not every border city is economically or historically important. It’s not unreasonable to say that a city must meet other criteria than simply being close to a border.
- mannykannot 4y agoYes... when I first saw this paradox, the author of the article I was reading (maybe Martin Gardner?) pointed out that 'uninteresting' is itself not well-defined.
- tuatoru 4y agoThe set of uninteresting numbers is probably empty.
- kybernetikos 4y agoI think the uninteresting number one can be described without worrying about 'interestingness'. It works out as the same as saying something like the set of numbers that are not the smallest number in any set in some arbitrary collection of sets including this one. It's the 'including this one' part that is causing the trouble, not which other sets are included in the arbitrary collection.