Question: The classic presenter of the paradox of value is a philosopher that died in this year?

Context articles: Adam Smith
Irresistible force paradox
Liar paradox
Pinocchio paradox
Paradox of value
Wollheim's paradox
Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language
Arrow information paradox
Bell state
St. Petersburg paradox

Adam Smith {'1': ", '2': ", '3': ", '4': "} (16 June 1723 NS – 17 July 1790) was a Scottish economist, philosopher, and author.
 He was a moral philosopher, a pioneer of political economy, and was a key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment era.
 He is best known for two classic works: "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759), and "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" (1776).
 The latter, usually abbreviated as "The Wealth of Nations", is considered his "magnum opus" and the first modern work of economics.
The irresistible force paradox, also called the unstoppable force paradox, shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"
 This paradox is much like the omnipotence paradox, which is a simple demonstration that challenges omnipotence.
 The immovable object and the irresistible force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution.
 Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two separate entities
In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar's paradox is the statement of a liar who states that they are lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying" or "everything I say is false".
 If they are indeed lying, they are telling the truth, which means they are lying.
 In "this sentence is a lie" the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis.
 It is still generally called the "liar paradox" although abstraction is made precisely from the liar himself.
 Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.
The Pinocchio paradox arises when Pinocchio says "My nose grows now" and is a version of the liar paradox.
 The liar paradox is defined in philosophy and logic as the statement "This sentence is false."
 Any attempts to assign a classical binary truth value to this statement lead to a contradiction, or paradox.
 This occurs because if the statement "This sentence is false" is true, then it is false; this would mean that it is technically true, but also that it is false, and so on without end.
The paradox of value (also known as the diamond–water paradox) is the apparent contradiction that, although water is on the whole more useful, in terms of survival, than diamonds, diamonds command a higher price in the market.
 The philosopher Adam Smith is often considered to be the classic presenter of this paradox, although it had already appeared as early as Plato's "Euthydemus".
 Nicolaus Copernicus, John Locke, John Law and others had previously tried to explain the disparity.
Wollheim's paradox is a problem in political philosophy that points to an inherent contradiction in the concept of democracy.
 The paradox highlights the fact that a person can simultaneously advocate two conflicting policy options A and B, provided that the person believes that democratic decisions should be followed.
 The paradox was formulated by the British philosopher Richard Wollheim in 1962 in an article entitled "A paradox in the theory of democracy".
Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language is a 1982 book by philosopher of language Saul Kripke, in which Kripke contends that the central argument of Ludwig Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" centers on a devastating rule-following paradox that undermines the possibility of our ever following rules in our use of language.
 Kripke writes that this paradox is "the most radical and original skeptical problem that philosophy has seen to date" (p. 60).
 He argues that Wittgenstein does not reject the argument that leads to the rule-following paradox, but accepts it and offers a 'skeptical solution' to alleviate the paradox's destructive effects.
The Arrow information paradox (information paradox for short), and occasionally referred to as Arrow's disclosure paradox.
 named after Kenneth Arrow, American economist and joint winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with John Hicks, is a problem that companies face when managing intellectual property across their boundaries.
 This happens when they seek external technologies for their business or external markets for their own technologies.
 It has implications for the value of technology and innovations as well as their development by more than one firm and for the need for and limitations of patent protection.
The Bell states are a concept in quantum information science and represent the simplest examples of entanglement.
 They are named after John S. Bell because they are the subject of his famous Bell inequality.
 An EPR pair is a pair of qubits (or quantum bits) that are in a Bell state together.
 Because of the entanglement, measurement of one qubit will assign a value to the other qubit immedeately in one of four ways, where the value assigned depends on which bell state the two qubits are in.
 This behaviour is not subject to relativistic limitations such as the speed of light, but the no-communication theorem prevents this behaviour to be used to transmit information faster than light.
 The phenomena can be used to agree upon random numbers in less time than it would take to communicate the numbers at the speed of light over the distance between the peers - This was originally assumed to be a result of an error in quantum physics and was named the EPR paradox.
 Originally, the paradox was resolved by giving up the assumption that the principle of locality is true, but other interpretations have also emerged.
The St. Petersburg paradox or St. Petersburg lottery is a paradox related to probability and decision theory in economics.
 It is based on a particular (theoretical) lottery game that leads to a random variable with infinite expected value (i.e., infinite expected payoff) but nevertheless seems to be worth only a very small amount to the participants.
 The St. Petersburg paradox is a situation where a naive decision criterion which takes only the expected value into account predicts a course of action that presumably no actual person would be willing to take.
 Several resolutions are possible.