OT: off-topic

[Andrew Dalke]

Tim Golden:
> Isn't this similar to (someone-or-other's) proof that there's no such
thing
> as an uninteresting number?
  ...
> However, the smallest number in this list is the smallest uninteresting
> number, and is therefore interesting, so it moves to the list of
interesting
> numbers, leaving you with the smallest remaining uninteresting number,
which
> therefore becomes interesting, etc. etc.

Since we're off-topic...

I heard this years ago.  I've thought about it, and decided that the
proof depends on the concept of "sort" since there needs to be a "smallest."
Are there interesting vs. non-interesting sorts?  Sorts are just numbers,
after all.

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.

See, that math degree didn't go to complete waste.

                    Andrew
                    dalke at dalkescientific.com