"did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. <br> ""That's some catch, that Catch-22,"" he [Yossarian] observed. <br> ""It's the best there is,"" Doc Daneeka agreed. One of"
"Teletransportation paradox The teletransportation paradox or teletransport paradox (also known in alternative forms as the duplicates paradox) is a thought experiment on the philosophy of identity that challenges common intuitions on the nature of self and consciousness. It first appeared in full published form presumably in Derek Parfit's 1984 book ""Reasons and Persons"", but similar questions have been raised as early as 1775. The Polish science-fiction writer Stanisław Lem discovered the same problem independently in the middle of the twentieth century. He put it in writing in his philosophical text """"Dialogi"""", 1957. In ""Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons"""
"of the first incompleteness theorem that uses Berry's paradox rather than the liar paradox to construct a true but unprovable formula. The liar paradox is occasionally used in fiction to shut down artificial intelligences, who are presented as being unable to process the sentence. In """" episode ""I, Mudd"", the liar paradox is used by Captain Kirk and Harry Mudd to confuse and ultimately disable an android holding them captive. In the 1973 ""Doctor Who"" serial ""The Green Death"", the Doctor temporarily stumps the insane computer BOSS by asking it ""If I were to tell you that the next thing"
"paradox, which demonstrates a paradox in natural language. In 1905, the Hungarian mathematician Julius König published a paradox based on the fact that there are only countably many finite definitions. If we imagine the real numbers as a well-ordered set, those real numbers which can be finitely defined form a subset. Hence in this well-order there should be a first real number that is not finitely definable. This is paradoxical, because this real number has just been finitely defined by the last sentence. This leads to a contradiction in naive set theory. This paradox is avoided in axiomatic set theory."
"paradox was alluded to in written stories as early as 1929, and in 1931 it was described as ""the age-old argument of preventing your birth by killing your grandparents"" in a letter to American science fiction magazine Amazing Stories. Early science fiction stories dealing with the paradox are the short story ""Ancestral Voices"" by Nathaniel Schachner, published in 1933, and the 1944 book ""Future Times Three"" by René Barjavel, although a number of other works from the 1930s and 1940s touched upon the topic in various degrees of detail. The grandfather paradox encompasses any change to the past, and it's"
"Barbershop paradox The barbershop paradox was proposed by Lewis Carroll in a three-page essay titled ""A Logical Paradox"", which appeared in the July 1894 issue of ""Mind"". The name comes from the ""ornamental"" short story that Carroll uses to illustrate the paradox (although it had appeared several times in more abstract terms in his writing and correspondence before the story was published). Carroll claimed that it illustrated ""a very real difficulty in the Theory of Hypotheticals"" in use at the time. Modern logicians would not regard it as a paradox but simply as a logical error. Briefly, the story runs"
"The Indefatigable Frog ""The Indefatigable Frog"" is a science fiction short story by American writer Philip K. Dick, first published in the July 1953 edition of ""Fantastic Story Magazine"", and later in ""The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick"". It has since been republished several times, including in ""Beyond Lies the Wub"" in 1988. The story centers around two college professors, Hardy and Grote, who argue about one of Zeno's Paradoxes, called The dichotomy paradox, where a frog wants to get up from a well, but each jump is half of the previous one. That way, Hardy argues, the frog"
"with an impersonal bureaucracy should recognize. Doc Daneeka shows he has a total lack of empathy for anyone else and he can only think about his own unfortunate circumstances, characterised with his constant lament ""Why me?"" From bemoaning his loss of a lucrative medical business because he had lied on his drafting papers, to his complete lack of interest for those under his care that may result him being punished by is superiors if he did care. Even when Yossarian helps Doc Daneeka by allowing him to get his flight pay without actually doing the required number of flights (because"
"Paradox of fiction The paradox of fiction is a philosophical problem about how people can experience strong emotions from purely fictional things, such as art, literature, and imagination. The paradox draws attention to an everyday issue of how people are moved by things which, in some ways, do not exist. Although the ontology of fictional things in general has been discussed in philosophy since Plato, the paradox was first suggested by Colin Radford and Michael Weston in 1975. After Radford and Weston's original paper, they and others have continued the discussion by giving the problem slightly differing formulations and solutions."
"include displeasing his superiors for grounding crew and being shipped off to the Pacific Ocean, water and its ability to drown a man, and having to fly in a claustrophobic aircraft, which he likens to ""climbing back into the womb"". Doc Daneeka is regularly explaining to his good friend Yossarian why he cannot ground him, even though Yossarian helps him collect his flight pay without having to fly. His fears and the constraints of military bureaucracy prevent him from helping his friend. He shows unusual compassion to Yossarian after the death of Snowden. Doc Daneeka feels the military is responsible"
"of pneumonia. During Milo's bombing of the airbase and the death of Snowden, Doc Daneeka shows the compassion for others he lacks throughout the rest of the novel. During the bombing, Doc Daneeka risks his life by attending to the wounded in the field while bombs are still falling, and after Snowden's death, he cleans up Yossarian and treats him for shock. At the end, Doc Daneeka's bureaucratic death convinces him that maybe he is, in fact, dead. Doc Daneeka was a physician in his hometown of Staten Island, where he initially established a failing practice. As the war effort"
"is the moving fluid that becomes denser and hence the bullet would float. But the bullet cannot sink in one frame and float in another, so there is a paradox situation. The paradox was first formulated by James M. Supplee (1989), where a non-rigorous explanation was presented. George Matsas has analysed this paradox in the scope of general relativity and also pointed out that these relativistic buoyancy effects could be important in some questions regarding the thermodynamics of black holes. A comprehensive explanation of Supplee's paradox through both the special and the general theory of relativity was presented by Vieira."
"around back home. As a military doctor, Doc Daneeka has the ability to choose who of the pilots can be grounded from needing to fly more missions, and who must continue. Because of Colonel Cathcart's competing attitude of increasing the missions every time the men meet the requirement, pilots with successful fruition grovel for Doc Daneeka to allow them grounding. Since Doc Daneeka is miserably sour for losing out on his business advantage, he takes it out on the men by not grounding any. Doc Daneeka is a hypochondriac, who feels something must be physically wrong with himself. He also"
"his paradox which was extensively use by Poincaré to attack set theory whereupon the advocates of set theory had to refute these attacks. He died in 1956 in Châteauroux, in the Indre ""département"", at the age of 94. The paradox was first stated in 1905 in a letter to Louis Olivier, director of the ""Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées"". It was published in 1905 in the article ""Les Principes des mathématiques et le problème des ensembles"". The Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell quote it together with six other paradoxes concerning the problem of self-reference."
"Sayre's paradox Sayre’s Paradox is a dilemma encountered in the design of automated handwriting recognition systems. A standard statement of the paradox is that a cursively written word cannot be recognized without being segmented and cannot be segmented without being recognized. The paradox was first articulated in a 1973 publication by Kenneth M. Sayre, after whom it was named. It is relatively easy to design automated systems capable of recognizing words inscribed in a printed format. Such words are segmented into letters by the very act of writing them on the page. Given templates matching typical letter shapes in a"
"Lindley's paradox Lindley's paradox is a counterintuitive situation in statistics in which the Bayesian and frequentist approaches to a hypothesis testing problem give different results for certain choices of the prior distribution. The problem of the disagreement between the two approaches was discussed in Harold Jeffreys' 1939 textbook; it became known as Lindley's paradox after Dennis Lindley called the disagreement a paradox in a 1957 paper. Although referred to as a ""paradox"", the differing results from the Bayesian and frequentist approaches can be explained as using them to answer fundamentally different questions, rather than actual disagreement between the two methods."
"""need"" the money). One connotation of the term is that the creators of the ""catch-22"" situation have created arbitrary rules in order to justify and conceal their own abuse of power. Joseph Heller coined the term in his 1961 novel ""Catch-22"", which describes absurd bureaucratic constraints on soldiers in World War II. The term is introduced by the character Doc Daneeka, an army psychiatrist who invokes ""Catch-22"" to explain why any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in creating the request and thus cannot"
"Zeno's paradoxes Zeno's paradoxes are a set of philosophical problems generally thought to have been devised by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (c. 490–430 BC) to support Parmenides' doctrine that contrary to the evidence of one's senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion. It is usually assumed, based on Plato's ""Parmenides"" (128a–d), that Zeno took on the project of creating these paradoxes because other philosophers had created paradoxes against Parmenides' view. Thus Plato has Zeno say the purpose of the paradoxes ""is to show that their hypothesis that"
"solution to Olbers' paradox (the night sky is dark despite the vast number of stars in the universe). In 1987 astronomer Edward Robert Harrison published a book, ""Darkness at Night"", on this paradox. This book clarified why lack of energy explains the paradox, and lays out how Harrison discovered that Poe's ""Eureka"" anticipated this conclusion. Many of Poe's conclusions, however, are speculative due to his rejection of analytic logic and emphasis on intuition and inspiration. Further, ""Eureka"" contains many scientific errors. In particular, Poe's suggestions opposed Newtonian principles regarding the density and rotation of planets. He also says that Johannes"
"Icarus paradox The Icarus paradox is a neologism coined by Danny Miller in his 1990 book by the same name. The term refers to the phenomenon of businesses failing abruptly after a period of apparent success, where this failure is brought about by the very elements that led to their initial success. It alludes to Icarus of Greek mythology, who drowned after flying too close to the Sun. The failure of the very wings that allowed him to escape imprisonment and soar through the skies was what ultimately led to his demise, hence the paradox. In many industries, extremely successful"
"it enumerates. This paradox is named for Georg Cantor, who is often credited with first identifying it in 1899 (or between 1895 and 1897). Like a number of ""paradoxes"" it is not actually contradictory but merely indicative of a mistaken intuition, in this case about the nature of infinity and the notion of a set. Put another way, it is paradoxical within the confines of naïve set theory and therefore demonstrates that a careless axiomatization of this theory is inconsistent. In order to state the paradox it is necessary to understand that the cardinal numbers admit an ordering, so that"
"""Darkness at Night: A Riddle of the Universe"" (1987) gives an account of the dark night sky paradox, seen as a problem in the history of science. According to Harrison, the first to conceive of anything like the paradox was Thomas Digges, who was also the first to expound the Copernican system in English and also postulated an infinite universe with infinitely many stars. Kepler also posed the problem in 1610, and the paradox took its mature form in the 18th century work of Halley and Cheseaux. The paradox is commonly attributed to the German amateur astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers,"
"Paradox of analysis The paradox of analysis is a paradox that concerns how an analysis can be both correct and informative. Although the problem takes its origin from the conflict in Plato's ""Meno"", it was formulated in its complete form by philosopher G. E. Moore in his book ""Principia Ethica"", and first named by C. H. Langford in his 1942 article ""The Notion of Analysis in Moore's Philosophy"". A conceptual analysis is something like the definition of a word. However, unlike a standard dictionary definition (which may list examples or talk about related terms as well), a completely correct analysis"
"axioms above are mutually exclusive. A paradox is supposed to arise from plausible and apparently consistent statements; Smullyan suggests that the ""rule"" the barber is supposed to be following is too absurd to seem plausible. The paradox is also mentioned several times in David Foster Wallace's first novel, ""The Broom of the System,"" as well as """" by James Gleick. In Timescape by Gregory Benford a high street barber shop sign states, ""Barrett is willing to shave all, and only, men unwilling to shave themselves."" If the paradox is altered so that there may be multiple barbers in the town,"
"A. Havelock, on the other hand, did not accept the view that Socrates's view was identical with that of Archelaus, in large part due to the reason of such anomalies ""and"" contradictions that have surfaced and ""post-dated his death."" Many of the beliefs traditionally attributed to the historical Socrates have been characterized as ""paradoxical"" because they seem to conflict with common sense. The following are among the so-called Socratic paradoxes: The term, ""Socratic paradox"" can also refer to a self-referential paradox, originating in Socrates's utterance, ""what I do not know I do not think I know"", often paraphrased as ""I"
"bosom, and the terrible temptation that this must be for Saint Anthony. When he asks the husband how often they have sex, he boasts ""Every night"". Doc concludes they have no idea, and with the aid of two rubber models gives a demonstration of intercourse. They thank him for his help and go away to give it a try. Later, the husband returns and, punching him in the nose, cries, ""What are you, some kind of wise guy?"" Doc Daneeka appears as a petulant man, feeling beaten by the military for losing his advantage of being one of few doctors"
"In one of the most important compendia of mathematical logic, compiled by Jean van Heijenoort, Richard's article is translated into English. The paradox can be interpreted as an application of Cantor's diagonal argument. It inspired Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing to their famous works. Kurt Gödel considered his incompleteness theorem as analogous to Richard's paradox which, in the original version runs as follows: Let ""E"" be the set of real numbers that can be defined by a finite number of words. This set is denumerable. Let ""p"" be the ""n""th decimal of the ""n""th number of the set ""E""; we"
"Moore's paradox arises not only at the level of assertion but also at the level of belief. One who believes an instance of a Moorean sentence is tantamount to one who is subject to or engaging in self-deception, at least on one standard way of describing it. Philosophical interest in Moore's paradox, since Moore and Wittgenstein, has undergone a resurgence, starting with, though not limited to, Jaakko Hintikka, continuing with Roy Sorensen, David Rosenthal, Sydney Shoemaker and the first publication, in 2007, of a collection of articles devoted to the problem. There have been several proposed constraints on a satisfactory"
"Preface paradox The preface paradox, or the paradox of the preface, was introduced by David Makinson in 1965. Similar to the lottery paradox, it presents an argument according to which it can be rational to accept mutually incompatible beliefs. While the preface paradox ""nullifies"" a claim contrary to one's belief, it is opposite to Moore's paradox which ""asserts"" a claim contrary to one's belief. The argument runs along these lines: It is customary for authors of academic books to include in the preface of their books statements such as ""any errors that remain are my sole responsibility."" Occasionally they go"
"Moore's paradox Moore's paradox concerns the apparent absurdity involved in asserting a first-person present-tense sentence such as, ""It's raining, but I don't believe that it is raining"" or ""It's raining but I believe that it is not raining."" The first author to note this apparent absurdity was G. E. Moore. These 'Moorean' sentences, as they have become known, are paradoxical in that while they appear absurd, they nevertheless: The term 'Moore's paradox' is attributed to Ludwig Wittgenstein, who considered the paradox Moore's most important contribution to philosophy. Wittgenstein wrote about the paradox extensively in his later writings, which brought Moore's"
"Newcomb's paradox In philosophy and mathematics, Newcomb's paradox, also referred to as Newcomb's problem, is a thought experiment involving a game between two players, one of whom purports to be able to predict the future. Newcomb's paradox was created by William Newcomb of the University of California's Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. However, it was first analyzed and was published in a philosophy paper spread to the philosophical community by Robert Nozick in 1969, and appeared in the March 1973 issue of Scientific American, in Martin Gardner's ""Mathematical Games."" Today it is a much debated problem in the philosophical branch of decision"
"drafts in more medical personnel, Doc Daneeka's surgery booms, especially with increased kickbacks from the local pharmacies and abortion referrals from the beauty parlors. This lucrative business comes to end when the military catch up with him after he lies to the draft board about having one leg amputated and being bed-ridden with incurable rheumatoid arthritis. Doc describes only one experience of his practice at home: a young newlywed couple who are unable to procreate. Doc finds out the girl is still a virgin and is cheeky when he asks about the medal of Saint Anthony that lies between her"
"Mere addition paradox The mere addition paradox, also known as the repugnant conclusion, is a problem in ethics, identified by Derek Parfit and discussed in his book ""Reasons and Persons"" (1984). The paradox identifies the mutual incompatibility of four intuitively compelling assertions about the relative value of populations. Consider the four populations depicted in the following diagram: A, A+, B− and B. Each bar represents a distinct group of people, with the group's size represented by the bar's width and the happiness of each of the group's members represented by the bar's height. Unlike A and B, A+ and B−"