The concept of originality is ambiguous. At what seems a trivial level I could indeed say something like: "100000000009933 is a prime with a digit sum of 7" or more simply I could say: "510582907494459230780348254342151716562862058959862805348253042119736".

Is either statement original in a non-trivial sense? That no one has thought that thought before, or will generate it again may well be true, but it is profoundly unimpressive because, with negligible exceptions all potential finite thoughts of smaller complexity than that never have been thought and never will be thought.

The number of conceivable thoughts of greater complexity is of course vastly larger, but it too is finite, some function of the number of particles that could be fitted into the observable universe. Now, what counts as a thought anyway? "100000000009933 is a prime with a digit sum of 7, and a cat attack is not a palindrome, and two and two make a jolly company in bed." Is (or was) the text of "War and Peace" an original thought? If you deny that it is, on the grounds that it was more than one thought, then how can you claim that "I declare 1+1=75738529014" is just a single thought? It can be broken down into simpler concepts too. Abstract originality of that mechanical type, if it is seen as originality at all (the point is arguable: if it really is original, then I could set my computer to turn out reams of "originality", propositions that had never been expressed before, whether by man or machine) is hardly of interest except as a pathological example of no real value. Usually what we want is something that fits into our view of the world as being entertaining or otherwise useful; creative, if you like. Such thoughts, even historically great ones of earth-shattering importance may be fairly compact, but they also tend to comprise a structure of thoughts of lower complexity.

Consider Newton's F=MA, which has been of far more importance so far than e=mcc. But both of them were based on other originalities, such as the concepts of force, mass, functionality and so on. Some of those concepts were also original with the authors of the gross statements, some not, just as in your sample declaration, "+" was not original, even if the whole statement was. Just so, it is hard to imagine any statement that is "original" in that every one of its elements is original. Creative originality is in general a matter of constructing relationships of concepts that individually might be common property.

If that thought disappoints you, how original is this one: "Who wants to be original anyway?"

Go well,

Jon