Resolution: All whole numbers are interesting.

To clarify my fourth point in the previous round, "In order for a number to be considered interesting, it must have a reason as to why it is interesting that can be expressed using words in the English language," can still be applied to descriptions such as my opponent's reason of why 135 is interesting.He writes: In English, this would read, "The number 135 is interesting because it is the sum of its first digit, its second digit squared, and its third digit cubed." Because all numbers and math terms have verbal representations in the English language, I don't see why every possible reason to why a whole number is interesting can't be stated in the English language.Moreover, the reason does not really have to be in English. I only said that to simplify the argument. If, however, someone has a reason that is in French, I assume that the reason can be translated to English."I would still argue the mystery behind prime numbers, the Ulam spiral, and finding the next highest prime number are all very interesting indeed."I agree that the Ulam spiral is very interesting, especially because mathematicians don't know why this pattern arises. However, this does not mean that every prime number is interesting, and my opponent hasn't shown why each individual prime number is interesting (aside from his expository argument which I will get to). Next, my opponent used a source, http://www.cadaeic.net......, as evidence that all whole numbers are interesting by showing that many numbers have unique qualities regarding how they can be expressed.My opponent said that http://www.cadaeic.net...... shows that all but a few whole numbers can be shown to have a unique way to express it; therefore, all whole numbers are interesting.However, http://www.cadaeic.net...... actually shows something different; the study was actually only completed for all whole numbers below 1000."Based on our examination of 10 through 1000, we make the following conjectures..." is a quote from http://www.cadaeic.net...... in regards to the three conjectures my opponent made.Rather then writing, "The only positive integers of type (i) (i.e, the non-expository numbers) are," he should have written "The only positive integers less than or equal to 1000 of type (i)..." and so on. Therefore, this logic does not prove all whole numbers are interesting because it does not extend past 1000.However, even if the study did find the same results for all whole numbers above 1000 as well, this theory still does not account for my proof given in CLAIM 1 of my previous argument. Keeping in mind that numbers have finite representations in the English language, if this logic was extended to all whole numbers to infinity, there would eventually be a point where the numbers were so large it would be impossible to state the "interesting" numeric representation in a reasonable amount of time.In regards to my attack on my opponents Claim #1, my opponent writes, "The fact it creates a paradox should demonstrate that the 'Uninteresting' category was empty to begin with." This is incorrect. We are debating whether all primes numbers are interesting, not whether there are no uninteresting numbers. You might think that if there are no uninteresting numbers, all numbers must be interesting; however, my opponent's claim reached a paradox - two of the results found contradict each other. Therefore, no conclusion can ever be made from that claim. I will pose my last argument as a challenge. Consider the following arbitrary whole number: 76941309571390671361571395If every whole number is interesting, then I challenge my opponent to find what is interesting about this number. I know that his ability to find an interesting trait will not definitively prove either of our viewpoints, but I think it will give us more insight to the problem.I also wanted to apologize for not following the round format on my second post. The new format should be fine, thank you.