4 ms·
This does require that the interestingness of being the least interesting article is large enough to cover the gap between least interesting and next-to-least i
by ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
This does require that the interestingness of being the least interesting article is large enough to cover the gap between least interesting and next-to-least interesting (plus the interestingness of being next-to-least interesting). Probably true, QED
- sigmoid10 3y agoThen it would be even more interesting, because of the more complex gap dynamics. The more you add to this argument, the more interesting things can potentially get.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y agoIn the extreme case of a Wiki with two articles, one about WWII and another about the 14th meeting of your HOA to address hedge height limitations, there will never be enough interesting properties of how uninteresting the HOA article is to achieve interest parity. I'd expect the gap dynamics and further will get geometrically less interesting, such that the sum of all levels will never exceed double the first.
- sigmoid10 3y agoThe proof implicitly requires a large set of objects. See also the linked page in one of the other comments. Since Wikipedia contains millions of pages, you can directly convert the other proof.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]