i think i get your point. on one hand the article doesn't even really deserve the time to write any comment. on the other hand its pretentiousness and attention here opens a dissonance which one seeks to resolve. i mean, why even make a fuss about that at all about reading a book again? i like a book. i might reread it again. someone else begs to differ, shall they seek heaven in their own fashion. i reread a number of books and it was always a pleasure.

Well, Sylvester (see footnote), or Euclid, whatever your name is, I think you get what I’m saying.

Footnote: on rereading your message, the sequence 2,3,7,43,1807 jumped out at me as being “Sylvester’s sequence” — sometimes called Euclid numbers — I definitely did not have to look that up in the online integer sequence database and simply know all these things intuitively.