English major time! Sure, you've got something there with the descriptor the least number not describable in under ten words. However, what that's lacking is specificity and grammatical stability.
First: it should be the least number not describable in under ten words in English, which is 11 words. Now, both that number and the number above it (and every other number) falls back into the set, and the set resumes existence. Then you change it back to the least number indescribable in under ten English words, which is nine words, it falls back out of the set, the next number above does too, and the whole thing unzips again. Wait, hang on! You're still not specific enough- it's the least whole number indescribable in under ten English words! Set blips back into existence. Replace whole number with integer, and it vanishes. Oops, that ought to be positive integer. It reappears.
No, Barnabas, what you have here is a grammatically unstable set, which neither exists nor does not exist. Rather, it flickers in and out of existence context depending, like a fluorescent Schrödinger's cat with a bad ballast.
no subject
First: it should be the least number not describable in under ten words in English, which is 11 words. Now, both that number and the number above it (and every other number) falls back into the set, and the set resumes existence. Then you change it back to the least number indescribable in under ten English words, which is nine words, it falls back out of the set, the next number above does too, and the whole thing unzips again. Wait, hang on! You're still not specific enough- it's the least whole number indescribable in under ten English words! Set blips back into existence. Replace whole number with integer, and it vanishes. Oops, that ought to be positive integer. It reappears.
No, Barnabas, what you have here is a grammatically unstable set, which neither exists nor does not exist. Rather, it flickers in and out of existence context depending, like a fluorescent Schrödinger's cat with a bad ballast.