Reactions To Richard's Paradox
Georg Cantor wrote in a letter to David Hilbert:
- "Infinite definitions" (i.e., definitions which cannot be done in finite time) are absurdities. If Königs statement was "correct", according to which all "finitely definable" real numbers form a collection of cardinal number, this would imply the countability of the whole continuum; but this is obviously wrong. The question is now what error the alleged proof of his wrong theorem is based upon. The error (which also appears in the note of a Mr. Richard in the last issue of the Acta mathematica, which Mr. Poincaré emphasizes in the last issue of the Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale) is, in my opinion, the following: It is assumed that the system {B} of notions B, which have to be used for the definition of individual numbers, is at most countably infinite. This assumption "must be in error" because otherwise we would have the wrong theorem: "the continuum of numbers has cardinality ".
Here Cantor is in error. Today we know that there are uncountably many real numbers without the possibility of a finite definition.
Ernst Zermelo comments Richard's argument:
- The notion "finitely definable" is not an absolute one but a relative one being always related to the "language" chosen. The conclusion according to which all finitely definable objects are countable is only valid in case that one and the same system of symbols is used; the question whether a single individual can be subject to a finite definition is void because to every thing an arbitrary name can be attached to.
Zermelo points to the reason why Richard's paradox fails. His last statement, however, is impossible to satisfy. A real number with infinitely many digits, which are not determined by some "rule", has an infinitely large contents of information. Such a number could only be identified by a short name if there were only one or few of them existing. If there exist uncountably many, as is the case, an identification is impossible.
Read more about this topic: Jules Richard
Famous quotes containing the words reactions to, reactions, richard and/or paradox:
“In this Journal, my pen is a delicate needle point, tracing out a graph of temperament so as to show its daily fluctuations: grave and gay, up and down, lamentation and revelry, self-love and self-disgust. You get here all my thoughts and opinions, always irresponsible and often contradictory or mutually exclusive, all my moods and vapours, all the varying reactions to environment of this jelly which is I.”
—W.N.P. Barbellion (1889–1919)
“Separation anxiety is normal part of development, but individual reactions are partly explained by experience, that is, by how frequently children have been left in the care of others.... A mother who is never apart from her young child may be saying to him or her subliminally: “You are only safe when I’m with you.””
—Cathy Rindner Tempelsman (20th century)
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
—Larry Forrester, U.S. screenwriter, Hideo Oguni, and Ryuzo Kikushima. Richard Fleischer, Toshio Masuda, Kinji Fukasaku. Admiral Yamamoto (Soh Yamamura)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)