Paradoxes in Mathematics

  • Peter Hilton
  • Derek Holton
  • Jean Pedersen
Part of the Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics book series (UTM)

Abstract

A good dictionary will give two (or perhaps more) distinct meanings of the word “paradox.” The first meaning is “a self-contradictory statement”; thus the celebrated classical paradox due to Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), based on a naive set theory which permits the proposition x ∈ x. A popular, but not very accurate, form of this paradox is contained in the following little story:

In the little village of Humblemeir there is a male barber. Now this barber shaves only those men who don’t shave themselves. When you think about it, this leads to a paradox. Who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, he doesn’t, because he only shaves those who don’t shave themselves. On the other hand, if he doesn’t shave himself, he does, because he only shaves those who don’t shave themselves.

Keywords

Defend 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beckenbach, Edwin F., Baseball Statistics, The Mathematics Teacher 72, May (1979), 351–352.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedlander, Richard J., Ol’ Abner has done it again, American Math ematical Monthly 99, No. 9 (1992), 845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hilton, Peter, The emphasis on applied mathematics today and its implications for the mathematics curriculum. In P. J. Hilton and G. S. Young (eds.), New Directions in Applied Mathematics (pp. 155–163): Springer, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hilton, Peter, Derek Holton, and Jean Pedersen, Mathematical Reflections — in a Room with Many Mirrors, 2nd printing, Springer-Verlag NY, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saari, Donald G., and Fabrice Valognes, Geometry, voting and paradoxes, Mathematics Magazine 71, No. 4 (1998), 243–259.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwenk, Allen J., Beware of Geeks Bearing Grifts, Math Horizons (published by the Mathematical Association of America), April 2000, 10–13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simpson, E. H., The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables, J. Royal Stat. Soc, Ser. B, 13, No. 2 (1951), 238–241.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stewart, Ian, Mathematical recreations, Scientific American, November (1997), 77–99.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Webb, John, Tournament Paradox, Mathematical digest 44 (1972), 21.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Voles, Roger, Rings of winning dice and spinners, Mathematical Gazette, Vol. 83, No. 497, July (1999), 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Hilton
    • 1
  • Derek Holton
    • 2
  • Jean Pedersen
    • 3
  1. 1.Mathematical Sciences DepartmentSUNY at BinghamtonBinghamtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceSanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations