It’s true. All books are interesting. And I can prove it.
As you know, one standard method of proof is “Proof by contradiction” – i.e. postulate the opposite of what you’re setting out to prove, and then demonstrate that this leads to a contradiction.
Now, what I’m setting out to prove is “All books are interesting”. The opposite to that is “There exists a set of books that aren’t interesting”.
(i) The set contains only one book; if so, then that one book must be interesting, as it’s the only book in this set, and that itself is a point of interest. Therefore this book cannot belong to this set … Hence, we have a contradiction.
(ii) The set contains several books; if so, the book in this set that was written earliest is interesting, because its point of interest is “This is the earliest written book in this set”. Since it is interesting, we must eliminate it from this set. We may then eliminate the next earliest written book from the set by similar reasoning, and continue in this manner until there is only one member left in this set. And then, the argument given in (i) applies, and once again, we have a contradiction.
Therefore, all books are interesting.
(Yes, I know, this is a variation on a well-known mathematical paradox. But it’s quite an interesting variation all the same. Indeed, I can prove there’s no uninteresting variation of this…)