Every number is interesting. Take for example :

- \(1\) is neither a prime nor composite
- \(2\) is the first & the only even prime
- \(3\) is the first odd prime
- \(4\) is the first composite number

& so on.

But is there an uninteresting number? Let us find out.

Let \(U\) be the set of all the uninteresting numbers.

Obviously, this set has a smallest element.

But such a number would be **interesting** because it is the first uninteresting number!

Hence, **EVERY number is interesting!**

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestThis is true if the word 'number' means a non-negative integer in this context. The well ordering principle works for non-negative integers only.

This seemingly pradoxical result arises because 'interesting' -ness is not a well-defined property. Would a number be considered interesting if it's uninteresting? Can something have a property \(A\) by not having the property \(A\)? – Mursalin Habib · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

This is exactly how Agnishom Chattopadhyay won against me in a debate- " Are all people interesting" He was in the proposition and came up with something similar and said that being a bit uninteresting is in itself an interesting property...thus :P – Krishna Ar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

– Agnishom Chattopadhyay · 3 years, 1 month ago

That was pretty interesting :)Log in to reply

Nice proof! – Paramjit Singh · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

what about the 2nd unintresting number??????????? :P – Lokesh Naani · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

– Shreya R · 3 years, 1 month ago

Its interesting for being the 2nd uninteresting number :DLog in to reply

@Shreya R quite true! – Ameya Salankar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Using your method of contradiction, you have thrown away a seemingly extraneous solution.

It is more logically sound to say that all numbers are

uninteresting, because in this case, a number isn't interesting, they are all uninteresting.You've also stated

which is an assumption.

So really, no numbers are interesting. – Finn Hulse · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@Finn Hulse,

is not an assumption! It's common sense!

How come a set doesn't have a smallest element? – Ameya Salankar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Even if you're talking about sets of numbers, the statement is not always true.

For example: \(A=\left\{ x : x \in \mathbb{R}, 2<x\leq 3\right\}\) has no smallest element.

The well ordering principle works on non-negative integers only. – Mursalin Habib · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

– Krishna Ar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes,that's absolutely right.Log in to reply

OK!Looks like we have found a fallacy to the proof! – Ameya Salankar · 3 years, 1 month agoLog in to reply

Here's a more interesting [pun intended!] variant of this.

Here's an example. \(4294967297\) is the first Fermat number that is not a prime. This description uses less than \(15\) words. Is it possible to do that for

everynumber?Let's assume the contrary. Then set of numbers that can not be described with \(15\) words or less is non-empty.

Now take the smallest element in this set.

This is the smallest number that can not be described with \(15\) words or less. Wait! That is a way to describe that number! Let's see how many words we used. I'll be damned! We used exactly \(15\) words! This number does not belong in this set now. In a similar manner it can be shown that no number can be in this set.The problem with this whole argument is that 'description' is not well defined. What counts as a 'description'? Is it okay for a description to be inconsistent? – Mursalin Habib · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

@Mursalin Habib, I knew this one. But there is something wrong with the proof. (The uninteresting number one) – Ameya Salankar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

– Finn Hulse · 3 years, 1 month ago

What if it is an empty set? Then... :OLog in to reply

@Finn Hulse, I forgot that one ... :D – Ameya Salankar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

– Krishna Ar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Yup...otherwise you're defying well ordering principle!!!Log in to reply

– Krishna Ar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Hi-fi! We have the same number of followers! :D ^_^Log in to reply

@Krishna Ar, you have caught up! Initially, you had less number of followers. Great job! Keep it up! – Ameya Salankar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

– Krishna Ar · 3 years, 1 month ago

Thank you ^_^. Initially I had way too less number of followers, yes now I have reached a decent level :DLog in to reply