"interesting enough": the OEIS is a "Big Tent" (but not aninsatiable idol)

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

hm^3 ...

interesting pov, i'd almost say qed:
all seqs are interesting, "at least",
in their own way, but that part about
"many possible well-orders", well, seems
to bring back in an irreducible element of
perspectivity, or even pure subjectivity,
de gustibus, etc., to the predication of
interestingness ... not to say that's
necessarily a bad thing.

jon awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Mitchell Harris wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> 
> >o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> >i know we have a proof that all numbers are interesting --
> >so long as "number" means something in a well-founded set.
> >
> >but i forget, is our space of sequences well-founded?
> 
> To be pedantic, if that's the word I am looking for:
> 
> Though the sequences (of "interest") are mostly infinite,
> they are countable since they each require a finite description.
> Therefore the possible sequences in the OEIS are countable, and
> a countable set has many possible well-founded orderings.
> 
> Mitch

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o