Boring Numbers?

Hey. It's been a long time since I've posted anything, so I'll make a candid proof I saw on the net somewhere.

This deals with a really fundamental theory:

There is no such thing as a uninteresting number.

As we deal with the earth-shaking proposition, one must have a deep fundamental knowledge of sets. Let us limit our theory to the infinite set of natural numbers.

On with the proof:
Let N be the set of all natural numbers, of which X represents the set of uninteresting number. First let us order this set X in numerical order. Let us now analyse the first number of this set. Our understanding of what makes a number interesting is so fragile that to produce such an example is a great step forward. Thus this number being the FIRST uninteresting number is of vital importance, bringing our interest to it. Thus it can not belong to the set, and isn't the first element. Let X' be the revised set omitting this fraud. Thus the second term of set X is the first of set X'. We can apply the same reasoning here, and easily omit this element, and continue to do so for all other numbers of the set, making it a null set. Thus it is easily proved that there is no uninteresting number.

Lovely proof isn't it? But there does exist a very important logical consideration. If one considers ONLY the negative numbers, our present ordering is befuddled, but do not panic. Suppose we order them in REVERSE order, letting greatest come first. Thus we can proceed by the same steps as above.

Now, we come to a very important juncture. If we combine these two sets, and look at ALL integers, we're stuck. For sure the negativity is an important difference between '+' and '-' numbers, and we can't ignore it. A set of Z has no beginning or end, so we CAN'T order it, and use this lovely proof for it. So it seems that the interesting-ness of certain '+' or '-' numbers makes other numbers loose there interesting-ness. But I thought interesting-ness was an intrisic property of a number. I.E. that a number can be called interesting because of a property that it exhibits, i.e. primality (it being prime) or it's square-ness/cube-ness/n-power-ness, or a pattern exhibited by its digits (like 12321).
Appealing to this logic, we could either conclude two things: That there exist no uninteresting numbers, or that the interesting-ness of a number does infact depend extrisicly as well as intrisicaly, and that it depends on a negative counterpart (whether that is the negative of the same number or not can not be concluded though).
As much as I'd like to take the latter, for it's more complicated, and that it IS earth-shaking in its statement, I'll abuse Occam's Razor and say that the former is obviously true.
Occam's Razor is: All explanations are simple, and the more complex one is more probably wrong. Note the keyword: Probably. It's generally quoted with overexagerrations like:
When you see a reflection:
1) Light is getting reflected
2) There is an alternate reality, which can be entered through the window, and which is inhabited by people who look EXACTLY like you, and happen to do EXACTLY what you are in front of the mirror.
Sometimes I think that life would be a lot more fun if it weren't so obviously 1.
That's all for now. I hope to be back this weekend with a post on the brain.
Signing off and Id Mubarak,
Arun