Talk:List of paradoxes

The link on Hegel's paradox leads to the entry on Hegel himself. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timodonn (talk • contribs) 2007-06-15T12:35:39 (UTC)

The article itself was incorrect and has been corrected to Curry's Inconsistency

If you have questions or comments please leave them here. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

1) I have never seen it called "Curry's Inconsistency" .

2) Even if there are some reliable sources calling it so, the vast majority of reliable sources calls it "Curry's paradox", and by WP:COMMONNAME, that is the name we use. Paradoctor (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not called a paradox in the original paper. Please take a look and read it. It was later referred to as a "paradox" but the paper itself (the original paper by Haskell B. Curry) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2269292 never makes this claim, in fact, it says the opposite, explicitly:

"the contradiction can no longer be called "the paradox of Kleene and Rosser" because it is based on an entirely different principle"

It's simply not a paradox and it never was. Someone in the 80s maybe wrote a book and cited it incorrectly and this has happened a few more times.

Including as a paradox would be for people who don't actually read papers or intend to. It's simply not one. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"Curry's paradox" is used in hundreds of reliable sources. "Curry's Inconsistency" in none.

can no longer be called "the paradox of Kleene and Rosser" That says it is not same paradox as that of Kleene and Rosser, not that it is not a paradox. Paradoctor (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

OK so a bunch of people have been wrong over the years big whoop?

Humans are stupid, especially with logic.

It's not a paradox. Show me in the ORIGINAL source how it is a paradox. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

the ORIGINAL source Irrelevant. We use the WP:COMMONNAME, not any purported WP:OFFICIALNAME. Paradoctor (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Then the common name would be the one from Curry's own paper: an inconsistency.

You're arguing against yourself here.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/n-prior-currys-paradox-and-3valued-logic-australasian-journal-of-philosophy-vol-33-1955-pp-177182/F4185E69A21C2D2EA172D835D6EEEBC7

^ this is what started all of this fucking stupidity, a shorthand comment referring to "Curry's paradox" but it's just a paper saying he reviewed some other paradoxes and then pointed out an inconsistency but lumped them all together. After this point I find people putting it in a "list of paradoxes" (see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradoxes-contemporary-logic/) but it's... not a paradox.

No more than a car is an airplane. And it's very strange that we're saying this is "CURRY'S AIRPLANE" when it is in fact a car and has always been a car and always will be one... and we do this because some other jackass humans flubbed it in the past.

LOGIC AT IT'S FINEST, I THINK? Strongwranglers (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

but it's... not a paradox

That is your opinion. We don't publish any opinions except those put forth by WP:reliable sources. Paradoctor (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not my "opinion" any moreso than someone has the "opinion" that 1+2=3 or that a cube has 6 faces

It's very much NOT an opinion, actually, lol.

Yo dawg I'm actually fine with leaving this shit stupid as fuck because at this point I'm not about to do a giant ass argument with some nerds who aren't even reading the articles themselves.

I have ctrl+f installed on my browser too I can also see keywords... are you not understanding that despite the keywords appearing it's all fucking nonsense that's an ouroborous of self-referential stupidity?

Lol. Strongwranglers (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Now if you had read what I said in the edit comments before you Vandalised my move of the page, I wouldn't have more to clean up here.

Please use the talk page more in the future. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It is called a paradox in reliable, cited sources. It is not called inconsistency in any of them. So pending concensus to make the change, we don't make the change. See wp:COMMONNAME, and also WP:CONSENSUS and wp:NOCONSENSUS. - DVdm (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Please also see WP:BOLLOCKS which is what including the article in its current state is. Many people being wrong just means that you should throw the citations out. Especially if they are WP:VERYOLD which is overwhelmingly the case.

Having many wrong citations is not a feather in an article's cap. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the citations in the article itself none of them actually call it a paradox aside from other "lists of paradoxes" which is just insane.

It's a feedback loop of stupidity. Strongwranglers (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

citations in the article itself none of them actually call it a paradox

False.

Beall, J. C. "Curry's paradox". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 1095-5054. OCLC 429049174. Paradoctor (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/abs/n-prior-currys-paradox-and-3valued-logic-australasian-journal-of-philosophy-vol-33-1955-pp-177182/F4185E69A21C2D2EA172D835D6EEEBC7

^ this is what started all of this fucking stupidity, a shorthand comment referring to "Curry's paradox" but it's just a paper saying he reviewed some other paradoxes and then pointed out an inconsistency but lumped them all together. After this point I find people putting it in a "list of paradoxes" (see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradoxes-contemporary-logic/) but it's... not a paradox.

What you're citing is from well after this happened. A feedback loop of stupid, as I have said.

BTW "False.", no dude... that article is from 2017 and cannibalizes all of the wikipedia sources.

Are you even reading these sources or just saying "I SAW A KEYWORD LOOK LOOK LOOK!" Strongwranglers (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: We seem to disagree what it is what the sources say. It happens. Now, you need to consider that disagreements are to be resolved by WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia. I suggest you give others beside me and DVdm a chance to weigh in. Paradoctor (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not about "disagreeing" you're literally just saying "LOOK THIS ONE GUY CALLED IT A PARADOX THAT MEANS IT IS!!!!"

and it's just not.

We're talking about 100% different things and I hate these dumbass arguments because it's always someone saying "but dats wut we hav always called it mee lord!" as if we're all peasants who have to follow some rote script about what's true

Look, go read the original paper by Curry. he doesn't call it a paradox. It's not one.

You want to have an article that says "THIS IS A STICK OF BUTTER" and it's all about a rubber duck, be my guest, but calling a rubber duck a "stick of butter" doesn't make it one and putting a rubber duck in a "list of types of butter"

IS KINDA FUCKING DUMB JUST IN MY OPINION LOL. But that's par for the stupidity-course around here. Strongwranglers (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

And to wit: that's what you want and I get it! We like the familiar. We've probably had Rubber Duck in this list for YEARS now and removing it is scary, and it's even worse to admit that a bunch of seemingly intelligent people were actually just jobbing it and trying to have kids and make money, blah blah blah blah blah.

My whole point is that the inclusion of Rubber Duck in your List of Cats is very stupid.

I'm absolutely right and if I feel the need I'll correct this from the end of stanford because I know for a damn fact they didn't actually write that article without using wikipedia sources (because I know stanford professors LMAO, unfair advantage maybe for me) and thus it is, without a doubt, self-referentially wrong.

I am HAPPY to hear why it's a paradox. It's not.

I am NOT HAPPY to hear "but it's always been fucking dumb let's just keep it dumb" because that is some redneck-backwater nonsense.

So if you want to press the 2nd point I suggest simply not responding because it will appear to me as very anti-intellectual behavior. Strongwranglers (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Also this article https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/curry-paradox/ is a steaming pile of BullCrap.

"Löb, who doesn’t mention Curry’s work, credits the paradox to a referee’s observation about the proof of what is now known as Löb’s theorem concerning provability"

Yet they insist it's a paradox in the same vein even though it's LITERALLY NOT MENTIONED AS ONE.

I mean this is really just some fucking nonsense here dude I hope you're happy to be a purveyor of extremely low quality nonsense with no attachment to reality other than in citations saying "yeah this is a paradox for sure, no I didn't read the paper haha" Strongwranglers (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll correct this from the end of stanford

( sipping tea ) Paradoctor (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

If you think I won't you are highly mistaken and others have been equally mistaken in the past.

You clearly don't actually have any faith in the facts because you're stunned by the stupidity of the institution, but I am in fact not, and I do not in fact find that there is somehow "infallible truth" here because some jackass at hard-on university wrote it. Strongwranglers (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Anywho you are NOT addressing the topic on hand, rather just stating (innocently but uselessly) that I am in fact happy to call people out for being wrong.

I've removed it from the list again because it's not a paradox.

The burden is on YOU to explain how it is, not on me to explain that it is not.

WP:BURDEN to support WP:CIRC is sad, shameful, and not really a "laurel in one's cap".

Defending the current state of this list just underlines you don't actually know what you're curating here. Spending 16 years being wrong about most of this makes me think you're only going to double down on being wrong so you can be the "king of the hill". Yikes. What a crappy state of the article as a result of that. Strongwranglers (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's try this again from the beginning

Oi...so, it's pretty clear to me that both sides are talking past eachother here--although that is most definitely down mostly to one party's incredibly bombastic approach and lack of familiarity with even our pillar policies. The fact of the matter is, it is entirely possible for a given entry on this list to be called Whatever Paradox in its own article, or wherever it is discussed in our content, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:V, WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOR, and yet also be excluded from this list through editorial discretion because, whatever the label of the concept, it does not actually belong under the umbrella of this list. However, the criteria for inclusion or delisting must also be based on the perspectives of WP:reliable sources, not those of our editors--however absolutely they are convinced of the rectitude of their understanding. In fact, Strongwranglers: even if every single person here was convinced that your analysis of each and every entry on this list was dead-on flawless, we still could not agree to supplant the perspectives of the WP:reliable sources with your own.

Now, as to this threshold case, I don't have time to review the sourcing at play just at the moment, but I will return and provide a perspective later. There is WP:NORUSH to fix this, if indeed adjustments are necessary, and frankly, Strongwranglers needs to take some time to familiarize themselves with policy before this discussion can advance. I will say, being familiar with Curry's....Whatever, my impression is that it is tautologically generally considered to be a paradox under general principles of formal logic. But I will reserve my ultimate position until I have had a chance to review the sourcing. In the meantime, please, let's keep this in perspective. The histrionics are helping nothing, and are way out of proportion to the issues here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, SW, I am highly confident any Stanford academic I have ever had the pleasure of knowing would have tossed you out on your ear for bringing the kind of antics you've displayed above into their lecture hall or office hours. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

People care about animals, but embrace diets that involve harming them.

This is not a paradox. Strongwranglers (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

One can travel back in time and murder Adolf Hitler before he can instigate World War II and the Holocaust; but if he had never instigated that, then the murder removes any reason for the travel.

This is not a paradox Strongwranglers (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Paradox: "A paradox is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to expectations of the result or calculation."

Many of these inclusions are not self-contradictory, they are merely absurdities. An absurdity is not a paradox inherently unless it's self-contradictory. In many cases there are inclusions here which are inconsistent or absurd but are not paradoxes. There are even cases where despite the common-conventional name being "x paradox" it is STILL not a paradox.

To wit: The Matrix (1999 film) is not a form of a Matrix (mathematics), and many inclusions in this list (and even the names of the articles themselves) do not make this distinction accurately.

In most cases it's just a naming convention and they can be included elsewhere but I am setting up this RFC as this article has been prevented from change for 16+ years by 1 user. (to the extreme disservice of the article)

This is really at this point where there's no logic on display or formal rules which show any result and half the inclusions are along the basis of "well it was included in the other list".

Honestly this is so incredibly broken as an article... it's just nonsense that's all over the place and includes things from anywhere between logic to pop-science to science-fiction and almost none of the inclusions are actual paradoxes.

What's the point of this article then? Just fluff? That's all I see here.

The main problem with most inclusions is that they are explicitly not paradoxes just because one might not expect the outcome to be different. Or we can add the "Student's Paradox" (A student expects to pass a test but fails instead) & the "Celebrity Sex Paradox" (One doesn't expect to sleep with a celebrity but then does) & the venerable "Burned Eggs Paradox" (One doesn't expect to burn the eggs but then does)

^ none of those are paradoxes even if you call it "X Paradox".

Many inclusions in this list are done on that basis, falsely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongwranglers (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC) 20:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC) Strongwranglers (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close since this seems much more like a rant rather than a complaint. Not structured appropriately according to the RFC guidelines - and based on the merit of this complaint, this seems much more disruptive rather than a legitimate question. If you're concerned about this article, why not fix it yourself instead of going straight to an RFC, or ping some of the regular editors on this page instead first and then use an RFC if you can't agree on something? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) StrongWranglers, I have removed the RfC tag because it is clear that you have not read the relevant policy on opening such a discussion, and have not complied with requirements such as WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Further, from the discussions immediately above, it is clear that you need to educate yourself on some of our most baseline editorial guidelines, including especially WP:verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:original research, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:PERSONALATTACK, and WP:VNT (that last is an essay, not a WP:PAG, but is a distinction you need to be made aware of), before any discussion between yourself and veteran editors here can have any productive effect.
  Please read all of the above policies and then return here prepared to have a mature, sober, civil, and above all collaborative discussion with your fellow editors that is based on this project's policies and guidelines, rather than merely your extremely high-strung feelings about the underlying subject matter and your views about the WP:TRUTH surrounding it. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, this is a volunteer work environment, and until you are prepared to both act in a collegial (and bluntly speaking, adult) fashion and do your due diligence in familiarizing yourself with this project's editorial standards, then you are a net negative to any work on this article, however salient your perspectives on the subject matter. You are, in fact, courting a block of your editorial privileges if you keep up in this vein, I think I can say with some confidence.
  And honestly, there may be some positive adjustments that can be made based on your concerns. I for one will be happy to discuss them with you, once you calm down and learn to frame the editorial discussion under the relevant rules of this community. But your present bull in a china shop approach to every contrary perspective presently prevents any hope of useful discussion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Snow Rise In case you haven't seen, Strongwranglers has been indef'd for personal attacks. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Response to request for comment: Many inclusions in this list are not actual Paradoxes

The objections I have seen so far simply are off any relevant or coherent point. It is perfectly possible to define a paradox in several ways, and that should be a warning to beware of any fiat definition. The term in English dates back to about the sixteenth century, and at no time has been uniformly or rigidly defined in its usage. The very etymology is intrinsically loose, as "para-" had several loose meanings, ranging from "near" in some sense, "opposite", in some "near", or "roughly", according to taste or usage. If it were possible to define "paradox" distinctly and exclusively in such a way that no other usage were possible, and that every user were to agree that any other usage would be wrong, misleading, or meaningless, then certainly argument would be wrong, or at least futile, but the would-be formal definition of "self-contradictory statement" is itself vague or even trivial, depending on the application. To add: "or a statement that runs contrary to expectations" is even wider, and in combination the two are a very fair representation of the general range of types of common usage.

It is true that common usage often uses the term nonsensically, and certainly vaguely and imprecisely, and that this often is unfortunate, (rather less unfortunately than confusing "literally" with "figuratively") and it might be a good idea to have a separate paragraph emphasising this point in the article, but the range of examples given in the article should suffice for practical purposes; it is far more valuable to the user (which, believe it or not, is the function of WP) than insisting on a wrongly precise definition that wrongly conveys a precisely wrong impression of cogency, either popular or formal.

Having been asked, I say the article, as it stands, is reasonably OK, and any improvement should be weighed against the loss of clarity that the improvement introduces. Losing one's cool to the tune of words that in recent years have paradoxically lost their force to impress or let off steam, is more futile and less impressive, though hardly more tasteful, than before. It certainly does nothing of benefit toWP or users. JonRichfield (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)