On 12 Mar 2004, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: >Fred Galvin <email@example.com> writes: > >> Wow, sounds like Nathan has rediscovered Richard's Paradox (1905). Not >> bad for an 11-year-old, if he really did think of himself. > >He's not an 11-year-old. Whether he's ever read Richard's Paradox or >not, he clearly has the background to choose the issues carefully >here. > >(I hadn't seen the paradox before, so I appreciate having a name >attached to it.) >-- >Jesse F. Hughes >"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and >if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" > -- Lewis Carroll
I was going to dispute the fact that Nathan's paradox is identical to Richard's Paradox, but now I believe they are identical. I also really appreciate knowing the correct name for this fallacious but very amusing argument. Thanks, Fred Galvin. I used to read the news group geometry_research a lot, and one of the delightful aspects of that forum was that often John Conway would supply the correct names for things. Dr. Conway is also highly adept at coining new names as the occasion demands.