Talk:Jules Richard (mathematician)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Changes

message: 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)
thread_title: Deleted "Solution" Section

message: 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.  130.149.15.196 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Substituted at 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410125616/http://www.central-france.com/famous_people_jules_richard.htm to http://www.central-france.com/famous_people_jules_richard.htm
*Added  tag to http://c10-ss-1-lb.cnet.com/reference/Berry_paradox
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified