The interesting number paradox results from attempting to classify numbers as interesting or dull according to whether there is some simply-stated property that describes the number; for instance 255 is interesting (some might say) because it's the smallest perfect totient number with three different prime factors. The paradox comes from trying to find the value of the smallest number that is not interesting.

But: Wikipedia also has a description of notable numbers that seems essentially the same as the interesting numbers: "numbers with some remarkable mathematical property". There is at any point in time a smallest integer not deemed notable by the WP editors (as of today, that number is 202). And as "not deemed notable by the WP editors" is a property that is itself neither mathematical nor deemed remarkable by the WP editors, there is no paradox!

So is the disappearance of this paradox itself a paradox?



Comments:

magicdragon2: 43: The first "Uninteresting Number" -- isn't that interesting?"
2007-02-26T03:10:32Z
"43: The first "Uninteresting Number" -- isn't that interesting? This is sort of a joke among Mathematicians, as it proves that NO integers are uninteresting. Trivially, though: the 42-gonal Pyramidal Number 42Pyr(2), the 41-dimensional Centered Tetrahedral Number 412dCT(2)" From the much longer Table of Polytope Numbers, Sorted, Through 1,000,000 http://magicdragon.com/poly.html