"interesting enough"

[Marc LeBrun]

 >=Mitchell Harris <harris at tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
 > 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.

You call *that* pedantic?  You want pedantic, here's pedantic:

The above argument commits the error of "petitio principii" [1] by assuming 
a finite description requirement.

The assumption demands verification via application of a simple 
experimental predicate: please submit a sequence with an infinite 
description to see if Neil rejects it!

References:
[1] http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm


 >=Jon Awbrey <jawbrey at att.net>
 > 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.

And from a pre-factored perspective, all large numbers are subjectively 
prime, at least in their own way.

Consider the predicate P which is true for any N to which P has been 
explicitly applied.  Then every N you actually test will be P, but surely 
this says nothing about the untested N?

Good grief, continue this way and we'll be accepting the Axiom of Choice!