OT: off-topic

[Greg Ewing]

Andrew Dalke wrote:
> 
> Plus, all it really says is "interesting" doen't have a closed cover.
> The values of interesting can approach but never be 0 ("uninteresting")
> and for any positive value of "interesting" you can always find a
> number which is less interesting than that.

Seems to me it's pulling a fast one by not having
a rigorous definition of "interesting". The only
way to make it work is to define "interesting" in
a way that's self-contradictory. So it's just your
standard self-contradiction paradox in another
guise.

-- 
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, 
University of Canterbury,	  
Christchurch, New Zealand
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg