I want to be X, the unknown.
Holy crap that’s funny!
667
The Neighbor of the Beast
I’d be a cardinal number. An inaccesible one, just to be difficult. (ZFC simply isn’t good enough for me).
Anyone who gets that knows too much set theory. 
Would that be weakly or strongly inaccessible?
1337
Somehow I knew you were going to call me on that one.
I actually can’t remember the difference. I don’t really know that much about inaccessible cardinals - I’m still a relative novice to the world of set theory; I have a fairly good understanding of ZFC, but not all that much past it. I just do a fair bit of reading around so I pick up random pieces of information (like inaccesible cardinals) and just felt like being obscure.
You can’t beat my first post in this thread for obscurity. 
To be honest, I don’t know much about extensions to ZFC myself. I’ve just heard the words and decided to throw them back at you.
Odd, non-integer, imaginary, irrational, prime, negative: some impossible combination
Actually… I think transcendentality is a decidable predicate. I have no real evidence to back this up, but it seems likely as the theory of roots of real valued polynomials is model theoretically ‘nice’.
So, while I can’t beat it for obscurity, I can be almost as obscure and be right on top of that.
Librarian: Hello
Woman: I heard something about a dating service?
L: It’s an experiment. Fill out this form.
W: ‘If you were a dewey decimal number, which would you be?’
L: It’s a sort of pre-screening.
W: That’s the STUPIDIST question I’ve ever heard!
L: …and you passed! [screws up form and throws away].
PS. I’d be -i, the other square root of -1.
Kitarak,
Bluff, my friend, bluff.
IIRC ‘inaccessible’ is generally the same as ‘strongly inaccessible.’ Neither sort can be proved to exist in ZFC. But don’t quote me on that.
BTW I see cambridge in your location - does the set theory indicate that’s the original, rather than one of those Americna knock-offs?
Maybe. But I had one before that, talking about [symbol]w[/symbol].
Anyway, I’m trying too hard to prove that I’m a geek, so I’m gonna stop now.
<Prisoner Hijack>
IIRC, in Arrival, the prisoner says “I am not a number, I am a person.” He does later say “I am not a number, I am free man!”, at least in the intro.
</PH>
Brian
I don’t understand the question.
Shade: No, it doesn’t. I am in fact at the original British one, but the set theory is from my own reading - My course doesn’t cover it until next year (Which I’m most upset by). I’m not even sure how well we cover it then.
Ultrafilter: Chatain’s constant was the subject of an article in New Scientist, so it doesn’t get to count as that obscure. So there - I’m geekier than you! Nyah! 
Umm… Wait. Err. Hey, look over there! ::hides::
Kitarak: Snap; I’m a third year mathmo at Trinity. And you? I am doing logic, computaion and set theory this term, but unfortunately I’ve had a continual work/sdmb crisis for the last few weeks, so I won’t know how much ordinal/cardinal stuff it covers 'till I read up on the notes…
Prime, baby. Nothing but prime.
Actually, I honestly see myself as a 7, so that works.
infinite
Graham’s number, of course. (Though I may be 6.)