Talk:List of paradoxes/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I reverted this edit. While the name is obviously an invention, the basic concept rings a bell. I recall a cartoon from the 70s or early 80s depicting a crowd of individualists, all wearing the same clothes and the same haircut and beard. If anyone finds literature we can use (or literature I can use), let your voice be heard. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the reference handy, but in one of the books about "The Farside", Gary Larson described one of his black-and-white cartoons depicting a field of penguins with one saying (or singing) "I've got to be me". When it was made into a poster, the that penguin was in color for the sole purpose of having some color, but it completely changed the meaning. In "Life of Brian", there's a scene where Brian addresses the crowd and points out they are all individuals. The crowd responds in unison, "We are all individuals!" to which a lone dissenter replies, "I'm not." I hope these examples are useful leads.Novangelis (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me an excuse to watch Life of Brian again. ;) The concept is clearly out there, now we only need a reliable source calling it a paradox. Paradoctor (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I found one that calls it a paradox, but offers no name. I'll keep looking.Novangelis (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why didn't do that in the first place: "paradox of the individual" "paradox of individualism" "paradox of individuality". Looks like more than enough material for at least one new article. Paradoctor (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rwald's edit brought to my attention that paradox is a topic outside of science, too. So far, only the Politics section addresses this. Are there no notable instances of paradox in art? The main article has a section on Paradox in literature, what about that? Paradoctor (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, shit, guys, since so much of the article isn't about paradoxes, why don't you rename it or delete all of the pseudo-paradoxes? This article is really just a big fat lie, and it's spreading through bookmarking sites. Let's stop with the misinformation and be honest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.168.242 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

An example of a specific problem would be helpful. Paradoctor (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Easy. The Monty Hall "Paradox" is not a paradox, it's just a Probability 101 problem that most people fail to solve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.69 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason it and other similar ones are listed here is that reliable sources often call it a "paradox." That is, he purpose of this page is not to list things that actually are paradoxes (of which there are very few), but to list those things that are paradoxes or have been regularly called paradoxes by reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they are indeed paradoxes, by the better definition of the word paradox. They're not paradoxes in the trivial sense that equates paradox with contradiction, but that's a bad usage of the word in the first place (why not just say "contradiction"?).

A paradox is, by definition, an apparent contradiction, not usually a real one. --Trovatore (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

True, however, if you compare Monty Hall to, say, many of Zeno's paradoxes, with Zeno you need a good understanding of the math behind limits, whereas Monty Hall is just a simple explanation that almost anyone could understand. Sure, the error is not easily seen without the explanation, but that shouldn't make it a paradox. The complexity of these two problems is very different. The Monty Hall problem should not be considered a paradox, just a common misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joriq (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The unmoved mover, commonly called "turtles all the way down", is a paradox which should be added to the list. --71.161.229.247 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

i would like to thank this page for blowing my brains out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.118.50 (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Another one for the to do list. Paradoctor (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I made this paradox. can you tell me if this is a paradox? Here goes:

"He is bad at everything." This is a wrong sentence because if he is bad at being bad, he can't be bad at everything (as he should be bad at everything, including being bad). But if he is good at being bad, then again he isn't bad at everything as he isn't bad at being bad.

This becomes a paradox. Is this a paradox or not???

--Lm34gt45 (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC) No, it's not, in my opinion. One cannot be "good" at being bad, just like one cannot be "good" at being happy, or red, or whatever. A better example of what you're doing here is the Liar paradox. In any event, this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. Even if that were a paradox, we couldn't add it to the article, because the article only contains those things that are called paradoxes in reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar, needs article and entry. 85.178.216.151 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Be Bold. That is, you're more than welcome to do both; it's unlikely that someone will do it for you. While I know you can't create pages as an anonymous editor, if you work it up you can use the WP:Articles for creation to have a new article made. As for an entry here, you can do that now, as the article is open to edit by all editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

None of these are actual paradoxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.21.150 (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's completely serious. First, everything in this article has been described as a paradox in reliable secondary sources. Also, note the lead sentence that says, "Although considered paradoxes, some of these are actually based on fallacious reasoning, or incomplete/faulty analysis." However, some of them are "true" paradoxes, in that the are truly self-contradictory, like Curry's paradox.

There are many good paradoxes here. Some are questionable. Joriq (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a paradox, it is equivocation.Joriq (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing dollar riddle ... Why cant we list this? It's one of the first paradoxes taught to many students. Even if you have objections to calling it a paradox the purpose of this page is to make it easier to find things. —Soap— 13:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would misinform people as to what a paradox is. This "riddle" is really just misleading, a red herring, nothing like a paradox. I would never teach this as a paradox, more like a logic riddle.Joriq (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two instances of this "paradox" in the article, one in the Logic section and the other in Philosophy. I'm pretty sure that this is plain vandalism as no article with the name exists even though those are pretty common paradoxes and a Google search links back to this article, but I'm not sure on what I should use to replace those links. - ShootinPutin109 ^Talk. 15:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of very real paradoxes which don't have reliable sources and yet are very instructive. Can they be listed in "See also", or assigned to a separate section?

To name a few, Meditation Paradox When meditation practice is taken up for a specific purpose, using the practice as a means to an ends impedes true progress.

Python paradox by Paul Graham (one of the leading technologists in the world) if a company chooses to write its software in a comparatively esoteric language, they'll be able to hire better programmers. kgashok 03:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, per WP:V, the answer is no. Information in Wikipedia needs to be verified by reliable sources. We're not here to collect everything anyone has ever said on blogs, etc. However, should Graham's paradaox, for instance, get picked up by a reliable source, then it could be included here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this might be notable but really we need an article to establish it as such so I'll leave it for a while and see if a corresponding article is set up okay. Dmcq (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

How is this a paradox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.65.12 (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

An excellent question. I have removed it. If someone has some evidence that this is ever termed a paradox (though I doubt it, since it's actually pretty much common sense), feel free to reinsert with references. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but this addition of the "blub paradox" looks to me of dubious notability in this context. Does paulgraham.com satisfy WP:RS here? —MistyMorn (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Try this "blub programmer". By the way, if something does not figure in Google Scholar, what other sources are there to check for WP:RS? Kgashok (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

For this sort of thing books and newspapers and magazines or websites writted by news reporters or experts or well practically anything except blogs and personal pages but for the less good sources a couple of independent citations would be needed. Basically you need better sources when the other sources in an article are better quality, like one would avoid putting some newspaper report up with a peer reviewed report in a journal for instance. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

@MistyMorn - Asst Professor "J Hidders" of "Delft University", Netherland's oldest and largest technology university, has 108 papers to his credit, and 654 citations. That is notable enough, and definitely not dubious. Kgashok (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Do Contranyms qualify as linguistic paradoxes? Kgashok (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Do some sources call it a paradox? Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"A contranym is a word that is encoded with opposing meanings – its existence embodies a contradiction." is all I have at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgashok (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess that might scrape by if it is in a good source. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Cohen makes a case here at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9973.1988.tb00698.x/abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgashok (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to decide if it really is or is not a paradox. If it in Wikipedia and has been called a paradox with some weight is good enough for this list. That sort of stuff should go with the article itself. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not re-group this article by including a separate category for paradoxes that are based on epistemology? Kgashok (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

At least, Stanford categorizes so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgashok (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

So, should this suggestion be put to vote before this re-classification is done? What is the accepted practice? Kgashok (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You can presume silent consensus. That is, since no one has objected so far, you can be bold and perform the reorganization yourself. Of course, if someone objects and reverts after seeing the actual edits, then you might need to come back here for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I know it sounds out of place but, Adrian Peterson, a NFL player was "arrested on a charge of resisting arrest" that is definitely a paradox, since you get arrested anyway. what could you do? not resisting arrest and letting them arrest you? Zidane tribal (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First, to include it, you'd need a source describing it as a paradox. But, no, no it's not a paradox anyway--originally, the cop said "You're under arrest," but he hadn't gotten around to mentioning the charge. Then Peterson started resisting. In the end, once he was finally subdued and taken to the station house, they decided not to charge him with the first account (which was presumably going to be some form of assault), but the resisting charge was still fine, since once a police officer says "You're under arrest", you can argue, but you can't resist. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you pick a goat and switch you'll win a car, if you pick a car and switch you'll win a goat, and you're twice as likely to pick a goat. There is no contradiction of logic there, and thus isn't a paradox. Robo37 (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A paradox is not a "contradiction of logic". A paradox is something that appears to be a contradiction. --Trovatore (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Has the two-egg problem been documented in Wikipedia? 117.195.89.54 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The crocodile dilemma is stated incorrectly. It should say "exactly if," otherwise the crocodile could just return the child in any case, i.e., please state "promises its return if the father" instead of "promises its return exactly if the father". 77.58.249.167 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, but I inserted the word where it made more grammatical sense. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Crocodile part still wrong for the same reason. 77.58.249.167 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: "...promises its return exactly if" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain more clearly why it's wrong now. (If you do, please reopen this request and I or someone else will reassess it.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's one I've had fun springing on people: Muscles can only contract. They can't extend on their own power. So how is it possible to stick out your tongue?

Simple explanation per this website:

"The tongue has a great ability to move in all directions. The reason for this is the way the muscle fibers are arranged, which is unique in our body. They run in all three directions: from front to back, from the sides to the middle and from top to bottom. This allows the tongue to make the following movements:

Extending and contracting: The tongue is the only muscle in our body that can actively contract and extend. When the vertical and horizontal fibers contract at the same time, the tongue becomes narrower and longer: we can stick our tongue out..."

Not worthy of inclusion in this article, I don't think. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If a police force must always catch a criminal, and never fails, but a criminal gives himself in, then the police force never caught him. Yet they did. They did not chase him down (Hypothetically and Literally), Yet they did get him in prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.111.74 (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Any good references that study the various paradoxes listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.159.40.31 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sainsbury's Paradoxes is a good place to start with. Paradoctor (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedian contradictions and paradoxes ;) Paradoctor (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll like the paradoxes to be sorted in two groups.

Real one. When they're based on real facts. But the paradox is coming after the interpretation of the facts. And we can see it.

Constructed one. When they can not happen in reality, but are manually made. It is like.. imagine this and that, then from that , etc. what is adding confusion. But we have to imagine it

And each group to have subgroups identical to the groups already in the list.

Also the paradoxes to be divided on two groups. When there is no explanation why this is happen.

And when there is solution of the confusion.

You can offer other degrees of sorting.

Such huge list of paradoxes, I like it.

Only one level of groups, I don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.158.83 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "happen in reality". Classification by "solved or not" has the problem that this very question is often in dispute. In general, improving classification and (possibly) conversion to a sortable table are things I'd like to see. Suggestions are always welcome. Paradoctor (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The so called Demographic-economic paradox may seem counter-intuitive for those individuals whose prior is that children are a normal or superior good. But it is certainly not a paradox. In the same sense that rich people spend less money in public transportation or fast food is not a paradox. Although the term Demographic-economic paradox is somewhat common, it is not a paradox from the point of view of theoretical economics. It is, in fact, a sensible result that might be explained by a plethora of reasons such as children being a form of health insurance for their parents, lack of access to contraceptives in poor countries, omitted variable bias in the observed correlation, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryfee (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC) your

When you use templates, please read the accompanying documentation. The {{dubious}} template has a reason parameter for a reason. Also, it is to be applied "after a specific statement or alleged fact", which was not the case here.

"may seem counter-intuitive" What is intuitive depends on the person. Take the tea leaf paradox. Only people who know a little physics will find it surprising that the leaves move to the center. Those who know a lot of pyhics or none at all are not surprised by this. Centuries ago, many people found the very concept of negative numbers paradoxical. Coming back to the specimen at hand, this paradox is counter-intuitive for those who grew up with Malthusian ideas.

What makes something a paradox is a body of literature calling it a paradox. The fact that some contemporaries or all descendants don't consider it a paradox is important for its reception, but it doesn't make it any less a paradox as such. The one thing that should clinch it for you is that the literature uses the word "paradox" to name it.

Finally, what on Earth do you mean with {{OR}} wrt the Icarus paradox? Seriously, that doesn't make any sense. Paradoctor (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This should not be included on the page, as it is not a paradox but a logical error. Paradox can be disproven as follows where the two bolded outcomes contradict the logical sta tement in a non-paradoxical way:

a →-> ((c^b)v(-c^b)v(-b^c)v(-c^-b)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.116.115 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Many paradoxes can be "resolved" by demonstrating a fault in the reasoning leading up to them. A paradox is a paradox when the sources say so, or when they have said so in the past. Can you provide sources that state that the barbershop paradox is not a paradox? Paradoctor (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this a topic that should be on this list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress_(viral_phenomenon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.164.111.129 (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Only in a very general sense. As long as no reliable source calls it a paradox, it shouldn't be included. Paradoctor (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This example is not a paradox, it is an example of a misunderstanding of perception. However, this (for example) is a paradox: "Do not think of the paradox as being paradoxical; in fact, do not think of it at all." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.193.80 (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Norton's dome should be included in this list. --MaoGo (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

IMHO it is a paradox, but we need a usable source (other than me :P) calling it a paradox or a contradiction, "apparent" or otherwise. Paradoctor (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The link on Petronius's paradox links to a page about Petronius himself, but it never mentions the paradox or the quote. As such, it seems to me the link should be on the name Petronius in "(unsourced quotation sometimes attributed to Petronius)". I won't change this however because I'm not really familiar with the style customs here. 63.65.120.22 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)  Done Removed as requested. Paradoctor (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Human identical twins are natural clones, but only in their early stage of life according to studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:440:7C0B:A4A6:808:8975:B913 (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, added it to § Psychology and sociology, though I would be fine with a move to § Biology, possibly even § Statistics. Paradoctor (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Bacteremia associated with tooth brushing, according to studies. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_paradoxes&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juha.K.S (talk • contribs) 06:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

We need an article to link to that at least mentions the paradox. If you can provide a reliable source defining and naming the paradox, maybe we can find a suitable target. Paradoctor (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

https://books.google.fi/books?id=xBJcb3rJcGsC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=paradox+bacteremia+tooth+brushing&source=bl&ots=S_QpQw3pq_&sig=zPxm1pRAzMXk91SRvCPxj-7dD3o&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwioo-XctqDcAhWlFJoKHX5LBqgQ6AEwBnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=paradox%20bacteremia%20tooth%20brushing&f=false https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_paradoxes&action=submit# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juha.K.S (talk • contribs) 06:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The Tolerance paradox and the Ellsberg paradox should be added to this list under decision theory paradoxes. —Eli355 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The paradox of tolerance is already there, moved Ellsberg. Paradoctor (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If you have a line that is 100 people long, and you stand exactly halfway between the line. Then 25 extra people get added onto the end of the line, di you move up the line assuming that the line didn't move?

Of course, since the line didn't move you technically didn't move up or down the line. But if you think about it statically. The ratio of before and after are as follows, 50:100(before) and 50:125(after) thus moving you placement from halfway up the line to two fifths up the line shrinking the present gap down by 10%. This in term moves you up the line.

So this means you are both not moving up the line but also moving upwards in the line creating a paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.96.241 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Needs article supported by WP:RS to be included. As it stands, this is WP:OR, with a big "O". Paradoctor (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed references to "Hutton's paradox" in this list. There does not seem to be any reliable sources that reference this beyond some original research. See discussion at Dream argument for more details. — e. ripley\^talk 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I found the summary of Abelson's Paradox surprising, so I went over to its page to have a look. The article appears to be a stub, based off of one result, and there appears to be a lot of disagreement over its validity as a paradox on its talk page. Given these factors, it doesn't seem like a good candidate to be placed on this list here under Statistical Paradoxes. Can anyone else share their opinion? Boatonagoat (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for this list are met: Article exists, and there is a source calling it a paradox.

If you wish to discuss the notability of the topic, please do that at the article's talk page, here is not the right place for that.

Please note that it is normal for paradoxes to have their status as a paradox debated in the relevant literature. A paradox is a "statement that runs contrary to one's expectation". Expectations vary with the person, and they can change in time. This is especially true for paradoxes that have been "solved". Which means that either the expectation has changed, or that a flaw in the reasoning leading to the paradox has been found and agreed upon. But that doesn't make it's initial place in the literature disappear. We have articles on lots of historical problems. ;)

Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we add The Backfire Effect to this list, because resisting new information if it contradicts existing belief, seems rather paradoxical. alexx (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source calling it a paradox? That's part of this list's inclusion criteria. Paradoctor (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this qualifies for inclusion.

The "Axis of Evil" is a name given to an anomaly in astronomical observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). The anomaly appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance – a result which has been claimed to be evidence of a departure from the Copernican principle.

Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in a 2006 Edge.org article:[5]

But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun – the plane of the earth around the sun – the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

Thoughts? Maskettaman (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

At first glance I wouldn't think of this as paradoxical, just highly counter-intuitive/heterodox/inexplicable, but some 'paradoxes' listed in the astrophysics section have a similar form. Maskettaman (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The list criteria allow only scenarios that have been called a paradox by at least one source. If you can provide a reliable source that calls it a paradox, then yes.

The term "paradox" is not used consistently in the literature, and we always follow the literature. Paradoctor (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Just leaving a note that Gentle murder paradox, Miner’s paradox, and Chisholm's paradox probably deserve articles. I may create them at some point, unless someone else beats me to it! Botterweg14 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Even when not notable on their own, you may be able to find an article where information about them can be fitted in, and then redirect there. Paradoctor (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Quantum pseudo-telepathy isn't really a paradox. It should be removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nononsense101 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Indeed, there'n no sign of paradox in the article. Removed. - DVdm (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have seen the Gibbs phenomenon reported as a paradox.

It is understandable that a signal should overshoot its target value when a stimulus is applied, and ring for a while. But what explains the ringing and overshoot that happens before the stimulus is applied? This effect has been observed on application of a square wave to a control system. The mathematics is relatively simple, merely an application of Fourier analysis, but the real-world behaviour is paradoxical. --Matt Westwood 15:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

A citation would be helpful here. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid this page is infested with garbage. Most of the so-called 'examples' are not paradoxes at all. Multiple possible outcomes are NOT paradoxes. Nor are opposing possible outcomes paradoxes. Nor are Unexpected or improbable outcomes paradoxes. Nearly all the examples cited are not actually paradoxes. Many are misnomers; labelled with the term 'paradox', yet are not. Maybe include a link to the wikipedia entry for 'misnomer'. And tag all of the pages associated with those supposedly paradoxical examples with the note that they are not actually paradoxes at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Replied at talk:self-absorption paradox. Paradoctor (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

My edit 28 January 2023 on Galileo's Paradox changing it from saying "Though most numbers are not squares" to "Though not all numbers are squares" was reverted on the grounds that it changes the meaning. Indeed it does change the meaning, but which is more accurate? The linked page does not say "most" anywhere, and I doubt Galileo would have phrased it that way -- his point was that the notions of size valid for finite sets are not valid for infinite sets, and intuitively "most" would be such a notion. Indeed, it takes a degree of mathematical sophistication to define a notion of "most natural numbers" which was not present in Galileo's time. So it seems to me that the reversion to my change should be reverted. David9550 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I just realized that my edit summary was misconceived, sorry about that. Your formulation does imply the paradox. But the very fact that I got mixed up on it already argues against using it.

"The linked page does not say 'most' anywhere, and I doubt Galileo would have phrased it that way" there are many more numbers than squares, since the larger portion of them are not squares (my emphasis)

"his point was that the notions of size valid for finite sets are not valid for infinite sets" Of course, but that is not a description of the paradox, it's the remedy to avoid it. Paradoctor (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)