Talk:Jules Richard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: High quality article. Hippasos 16:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (edit)

	France Portal Jules Richard is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

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)

Please help to prevent or revert vandalism of user Haldir, which is a well-known vandal.141.82.28.22 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Mathemaduenn

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)

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. 217.94.228.116 16:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

I am not the author of that article. I only appreciate having a correct one.