Talk:Jules Richard (mathematician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Axel added "an investigation of the nature of axioms in geometry: are they necessarily true, are they arbitrary assumptions, are they definitions?"

Well this is part of the flawed work I am talking about. I think these questions had been answered several years prior to his writing, and he reached some incorrect conclusions.

"are they necessarily true" - yes, by definition all axioms are true, I mean that is simply what they *are*

"are they arbitrary assumptions" - we know this to be true as well.

"a variant of Cantor's diagonal argument."

No, I don't think this is correct. The diagnoal arguement was on the nature of infinite numbers, the Richard paradox was basically a restatement of the old Epimenides argument on self-negating recursion.

Richard used Cantor's diagonal argument. The failure of his argument is due to the change of language. A very well written article. Hippasos 16:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to prevent or revert vandalism of user Haldir, which is a well-known vandal. 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that 111777 is nameable in 13 syllables: "three times nineteen times thirty-seven times fifty-three".

This article is of highest quality, in particular the paradoxon is given here in its original formulation due to Jules Richard, contrary to the paradox given in the article Richard's paradox. Further all known different versions are sampled here.

It seems however, that two vandals who are already actice in German Wikipedia have contacted each other to conspire to destroy this article. You can find the conspiracy here:

or here:

Könntest Du auch mal schauen, ob er bei Jules Richard bzw. Potentielle und aktuale Unendlichkeit wieder rumfurwerkt und gegebenenfalls reverten. So sieht es nach Kleinkrieg zwischen ihm und mir aus.

Was denkst Du? Haldir 19:12, 16. Jul. 2007 (CEST)

Na das hat sich ja getroffen. ;-) Jules Richard war ohnehin noch auf meiner Beobachtungsliste. Potentielle und aktuale Unendlichkeit hab ich mal mit aufgenommen. --Mathemaduenn 19:18, 16. Jul. 2007 (CEST) Danke! Haldir 20:52, 16. Jul. 2007 (CEST)

For those who speak german maybe also this should be interesting. It's not really clear if the article "Richard's paradox" is wrong or your version and it's also not clear who is the vandal here.

Grüße --Mathemaduenn 10:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the original by Jules Richard. Then you will know which version is wrong and who is the vandal - here and in the German Wiki. 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For this article it's enough to have a short version of the paradox. If the article about the paradox is wrong, it should be corrected. --Mathemaduenn 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Jules Richard <-> article about the paradoxon[edit]

This should be an article about Jules Richard not about the paradox. The paradox(including versions and reactions) should be explained in Richard's paradox --Mathemaduenn 07:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The present article about the paradox is wrong. Better have the correct material in the article about Jules Richard than nowhere. Further all that is interesting about Jules Richard is his paradox. I propose the article Richards paradox should be eliminated and a link put to this article. But not being a vandal ...
If the article is wrong it should be corrected. Talk:Richard's paradox is the right place therefor. --Mathemaduenn 15:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct it, if you feel able to do it and have enough time. Unless it is as informative as the paradox section here we will not agree to your vandalism. Why are you always deleting only without adding something valuable by yourself?
If it's really wrong you can simply replace it by your version, but it doesn't make sense to have different articles with different versions. --Mathemaduenn 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the author of that article. I only appreciate having a correct one.

I think the articles about Richard and his paradox should be separated (a mathematician is not the same as his mathematics): A short article about Richard and a link to the article about the paradox. I also think the article about the paradox is poorly written and that the more formal and complete treatment in this article should be moved to that article and replace it. If no one objects I will do this in a couple of days.Alterationx10 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Basically I interchanged the info in the articles about Richard and the paradox. The description of the paradox in the article about Richard was much the better than the description previously given in the article about the paradox. I didn´t modify the text at all, just swapt the articles. Alterationx10 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not do a careful job, with Richard's paradox being categorized as a mathematician at the bottom, and you also did not handle the interwiki links properly. Can you try again, please, with more care (e.g., reading the whole text after the change). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted "Solution" Section[edit]

i've taken the liberty to delete the entire section called "solutions to Richard's paradox"

It's a fairly substantial edit, however, i think it's justified.

First, i am almost 100% sure that it's original research. I've read just about every paper with the phrase "Richard's paradox" in jstor and i haven't came across anything remotely like it.

and secondly, and more importantly, it basically says: let's ignore the paradox because it screws up our language... which really doesn't offer anything... that's not a solution... Philosophy.dude (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wolfgang Mückenheim (WM) abuses Wikipedia (and other sites like PlanetMath) to spread his mistaken views on set theory and reference his essentially self-published book. Any mathematician in doubt about his credibility need only have a look at what he uploaded to the arxiv. I suggest removal of the reference. (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (Carsten Schultz, TU Berlin)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jules Richard (mathematician)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

High quality article. Hippasos 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jules Richard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]