text:
Talk:Paradox

Method to the madness
I don't think Hamlet's methodical madness would be correctly described as a paradox, but I don't want to change it myself. 124.149.38.108 (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, why don't you elaborate your point a bit more? Catgut (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well in a previous scene Polonius suggested to the Queen that true madness can only be defined as nothing but being mad, so in this scene he mentions another element (method) which corrupts his definition. That's not really what I mean though, which is that the aside in which he says there is a method in the madness served to reinforce the charade to the audience. There is no paradox because he wasn't mad, and paradoxes rely on definitional rigidity. 124.149.119.211 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

paradox ?????.......
if a man created a worm hole,by which he could go only 1hr back in time,goes through it and killed his own past,simply asking what would happen. ronitd 13:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronitd (talk • contribs)

If a man could create a worm-hole and went back in time 1 hour, he would erase the last hour, and also erase when he went into the worm-hole, so in effect he never went back in time.Flight Risk (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Paradox of Abraham
Søren Kierkegaards "Fear and Trembling" brings the religious and ethical paradox of faith/belief through Abrahams willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, whom he loves, to God. I would just recommend this book to anyone who finds an unresolved paradox interesting. What makes Abraham above the ethical, and so not a contemplating murderer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.18.15.24 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Impossible Directive
How would one classify an impossible directive, like one that we see all the time ...

'''This is a test. Please ignore this message.'''

If I ignore this message, I am acknowledging it. If I respond to it, I am ignoring it. Thus, it's a directive that is impossible to follow. I'd guess that this is some sort of paradox. WHPratt (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt say that was a paradox, just a notice which it is impossible to obey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.233.89 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you respond to the message, you are not ignoring it, but what it says (the directive). Even ignoring it is a response. Kenneyw (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Of course, the sender of the message wants the recipient to do nothing. Thus, the statement ought to read something like "This message is a test. Please do not take any action regarding it." However, the other form, a directive that directs that its directions be ignored is paradoxical. WHPratt (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just saw a sign today in my building: "THIS DOOR MUST REMAIN CLOSED AT ALL TIMES." As it's also labeled a Fire Exit, it obviously isn't secured. So, said door can be opened; it's just that, to comply with the directive, you mustn't do so. Not ever. However, it's a commonly used route to a main stairwell to the other floors, so what they really want to say is to "Keep this door closed except when you're using it." One might argue that a door that remains closed at all times isn't really a door at all, it's just part of the wall. WHPratt (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly, one of the players' dressing rooms at Brooklyn's Ebbetts Field used to have a sign that read VISITORS' CLUBHOUSE -- NO VISITORS ALLOWED. WHPratt (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC) I've since been corrected: said sign was seen at The Polo Grounds in New York City. WHPratt (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I remember an old university professor friend of mine. He was a big shot and has a reserved parking space. The sign there said "This parking space is RESERVED for Dr. ____ ____ ____. DO NOT PARK HERE!" [He had a title and three names on it, but of course.] As this guy was fanatic about the English language, I pointed out to him that the sign should have read something like "... ONLY HE MAY PARK HERE!" but he claimed it wasn't his problem. WHPratt (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

"VIGILANCE PARADOX"
Does anyone have any information on the history of the "Vigilance Paradox"? I heard about this paradox a few days back, and can't seem to track down what it is. It's very important that I find out.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeperC (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This article appears to contradict itself
This article is riddled with instances of self-contradiction. I think we should revise it thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.102.89 (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Well, if you're going to contradict yourself, an article about paradoxes would seem to be the best place. ;) WHPratt (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sports Paradox
I'll leave it to some expert to classify, but a once-good pitcher having a very bad season once said "It takes a good pitcher to lose 20 games."

The point is not, of course, that losing games is a good thing, but that only a pitcher of proven ability will get the chance to get that many decisions. If the team didn't have confidence in him, they'd stop using him well before 20 losses. WHPratt (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Another. Discussing the wisdom of Yogi Berra on the talk page for his article, I recalled this story: someoned is asking Yogi for an opinion about organized Little League baseball. He told about his youth in the summer time, how he and his friends would rise early and play softball all morning, eat a sandwich under a tree, then play hardball until it got dark, really dark. All day, every day. In Little League, he noted, you play two innings and they have to take you out and put in another kid. Why, he said, you can't even learn to strike out in that amount of time. This suggests that in attaining mastery of some subject, even the negative things, like striking out properly have to be learned. One can imagine there are lots of variants on this theme. I suspect that Yogi may be a source of more paradoxes as well. WHPratt (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition
Perhaps the page might benefit from a clear definition: "a paradox is a seeming contradiction." Kenneyw (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree. This page demonstrates a clear problem that I see on Wikipedia quite often.  It is dominated by the overtly-rational, "left-brain"-oriented way of knowing that suggests that all things can be resolved through direct logic and clear description.  It has a connection to analytic philosophy and some weird sort of Physicalism that seeks to deny that some things exist.  If a paradox is a contradiction, it has a link to an aporia, in the sense that puzzlement and confusion may lead to ideas and perceptions that simply contradict and cannot be resolved.  That's it.   But, to accept this irreconcilability is not enough.

 * Accepting that some things cannot be resolved, requires what Keats suggested, that we must to be able to "stand comfortably in uncertainty, Mystery, doubt" within his definition of Negative capability. Here, and elsewhere on Wikipedia, there is tendency to deny that there any "uncertainty, Mystery, doubt" in the world, but only our failure to think rationally or clearly enough about it.  I would argue that is a problem not with the world, or with rationality, but a problem with the human mind.

 * The human mind needs to know and does not like not knowing, thus we have a tendency to turn away from mystery and doubt and pretend it does not exist. Thus, the paradox is described as merely as a "confusion" or "tautology" and not contradiction that perhaps, cannot be reconciled. Edunoramus (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Here's the former lede on the article, when it was a featured article on Wikipedia back in 2004: "A paradox is an apparently true statement that seems to lead to a logical self-contradiction, or to a situation that contradicts common intuition. The identification of a paradox based on seemingly simple and reasonable concepts has often led to significant advances in science, philosophy and mathematics. In moral philosophy, paradox plays a particularly central role in debates on ethics, particularly in the form of ethical dilemmas. Common themes in paradoxes include direct and indirect self-reference, infinity, circular definitions, and confusion of levels of reasoning." Edunoramus (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Thus, it is important to note that a paradox in science and mathematics is very different than a paradox in philosophy and moral philosophy.  This is the problem. Edunoramus (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

 * There are at least four definitions of paradox that are quite popular in philosophy. They come from William Lycan (from his 2010 "What, exactly, is a paradox?"), Roy Sorensen (from his 2003 "A Brief History of the Paradox"), John Corcoran (from his 1989 "Argumentations and Logic"), and W.V.O. Quine (from his 1966 "The Ways of Paradox").  Any one of them would benefit the article quite a bit.  They all have the commonality of a paradox arising when there is a surprising juxtaposition of (seeming) truth-values of statements.  Being this general, it is incorrect to say that paradoxes in science and mathematics need to be distinguished from paradoxes in philosophy (though, perhaps it is helpful to distinguish between deductive paradoxes and inductive ones).  In fact, most of the paradoxes which have been very influential in philosophy come from physics (e.g. Zeno's paradoxes, grandfather paradox, EPR paradox) and foundations of mathematics (e.g. Russell's Paradox, Lowenheim-Skolem Paradox).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.63.45 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 * It would then seem prudent to split this page further to explain the idiosyncratic variance between what is expected and the end result, as this seems to be the core issue that has sprung up around paradox

 * "Patrick Hughes outlines three laws of the paradox:" it says. I'm a bit puzzled as to why "This statement is false" appears three separate times. I can't find the original, presumably three laws but it does seem plausible to simplify this portion of the text to remove the superfluous. Mizusajt (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I think that Edunoramus brings up some good points, particularly the one about mystery. One problem I have with this article is that it seems addresses its topic almost exclusively in academic/logical terms, ignoring some of the more common (i.e. layman's) aspects of how paradox is understood.  It could say more about how the topic is used in popular culture and literature, for instance.  For the layman, one of helpful definition that Webster's provides is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true".   Webster's' also notes that paradox can be applied to situations as well as statements.  Those things seem to tie-in with the popular conception I've always encountered (or would it be misconception?).  But, I don't see that reflected much here.

 * So, for instance (in everyday terms), your friend might remark to you that it is a paradox how John's mother, 100 year old Mrs. Jones, is on one hand so lucky—she has been able to live the long life so many of us want to have, but is so unlucky to suffer from arthritis and dementia. Or you might be reading The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne thinking, "this book deals with various connected paradoxes, such as how God allows Hester's child, Pearl (the name symbolic a beauty treasure), to be born out of a sinful and adulterous act.  Am I off-base here, or should the article reflect more popular conceptions in these veins (well-sourced of course), as well as more emphasis on the definition of how something seemingly contradictory can be perceived as true?  Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Too technical?
It can give you a head ache but with a little reading I think it makes sense.

Panpog1 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Example given of howlers (Paradox) - alternate solution
Slightly past half-way down the section, Logical paradox, is an example given in which a father and son are driving down the road. The surgeon does not have to be the boy's mother for the story to be non-contradictory. I suggest that the "father" mentioned at the beginning of the story might be referring to the boy's father, as in priest, in which case the boy can have two fathers without the story being contradictory. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Weed Paradox
Is there any classification known as a Weed Paradox (or some similar term)?

Many herbariums and botanical institutions maintain weed gardens, for the sake of completeness, and probably to support research on controlling these.

The defintion of "weed" usually centers about a plant that grows where is isn't wanted, where it shouldn't be growing.

So, a weed in a weed garden isn't a weed, as that's where weeds belong. Gather together enough weeds, and they cease being weeds. (Presumably, if a pretty flower pops up there, it gets removed.)

But you still want to call it a "weed collection" for obvious reasons. ;) WHPratt (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Curry's paradox unresolved?
I wonder what makes Curry's paradox unresolved. It seems to me that it is as much resolved as the Liars Paradox and in a similar way. This is also expressed in the Article for Curry's paradox. Mordoron (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 * "Curry's paradox can be formulated in any language supporting basic logic operations that also allows a self-recursive function to be constructed as an expression."
 * To solve it, you have to give up either at least one basic logic operation or recursive statements. Either way, you get a pain in the ass. Same goes for the liar. Paradoctor (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Thank you. I agree with your statement. I take it you argue that in order to "resolve" the paradox we have to revert to using a natural language in which the paradox can not be formulated. This interpretation of the word "resolve" seems too strict to me. The use of the word "yet" is also misleading in my opinion. It infers that some future knowledge or understanding is lacking in order for us to resolve the paradox. Is that really possible in view of the above interpretation of "resolve"?
 * In any case, it seems misleading to argue that Curry's paradox (and by the same logic Liar's) is "unresolved", where in the appropriate articles there are 3 paragraphs dedicated to the resolution (Curry's), and at least 6 great philosophers giving their resolution (Liar's). At the very least, I would change the sentence "Others, such as Curry's paradox, are not yet resolved." to "Others, such as Curry's paradox and Liar's paradox are examples that some sentences in natural language can not be consistently assigned a truth value" Mordoron (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

 * The articles are misleading, I'm afraid. All these "resolutions" are contested in some way. Paradox, Curry's paradox, liar paradox and many others are quite a ways away from being comprehensive. Work in progess. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong
'Nothing is Impossible', meaning that it is impossible for something to be impossible, thus contradicting itself. Nothing literally means "not a thing". So by definition, nothing is the absence of "something" (or more specifically all things that exist or are 'some thing'). So "nothing is impossible" is in fact not a self-contradicting statement, because it literally means "not a thing is impossible", which refers to physical existence. Any thing that exists is possible, by virtue of it's own existence. Nothing is the absence of existence and thus not "something". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.245.56 (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Nothing doesn't mean "not a thing". It means "no thing". Britmax (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Can you give me an example of nothing then? If nothing is "no thing" then what exactly is it? I don't see how the statement "No thing is impossible" could possibly imply that "something is impossible". "No thing" is the exact opposite of "some thing".
 * This might seem pedantic, but it is an important distinction. Just because we use this phrase rather freely in everyday life does not mean that we can just equivocate "nothing" with "something" and subsequently argue that it is a self-contradicting statement. It might be a vacous statement, but that doesn't make it self-contradicting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.245.56 (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I removed the sentence because it was not a good example of self-reference, as highlighted by your discussion. If you check out the article on nothing, you'll see that it is debated whether nothing refers to things at all. Paradoctor (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Thank you.

 * In the article about the exception paradox it is argued that "If everything is possible, then it is possible for anything to be impossible.", but this argument seems to be making the same categorical error.

 * In one category we have the category of all things that are possible. In this specific case this would include all things, with no exception ("Everything is possible without exception"), the second category of things that are impossible would subsequently be empty. I don't see how you then get to "everything is impossible" which is the exact opposite of that statement. If everything was indeed possible, no thing would be impossible.

 * This argument, again seems to making the same fallacy of equivocation, where the words possible and impossible are equivocated to mean the same thing, even though they mean the exact opposite. If everything is possible, no thing is impossible. There is no paradox there. 90.146.245.56 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 * A paradox doesn't vanish just because there is a solution. It just ceases to be a problem. Anyway, I think our time is better spent looking up sources for that article, rather than discussing its subject. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Russell's paradox, naive set theory and sources
Among the problems we have is that the assertion that "Russell's paradox [...] showed that naive set theory was flawed." is, well, flawed. Firstly, the source cited appears to be an undergraduate dissertion which we would not normally regard as a reliable source: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Secondly the source states clearly that Russell found an inconsistency in Frege's axiomatic set theory. A later remark is "the (naïve) set theory of Frege leads to a contradiction". So the source, if reliable, only supports the claim that one particular naive set theory is flawed. The distinction between an axiomatic theory and a naive theory is not resolved. However, I suggest that what Russell's paradox showed was that a development of set theory in which sets are identified with properties is flawed, since the property "is not a member of itself" cannot (consistently) be identified with a set. Deltahedron (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitive improvement, you didn't have to justify it on my account. Paradoctor (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a parallel discussion going on at Talk:Naive set theory. Deltahedron (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dialetheic paradoxes
I'm having trouble with these citations. I don't see how they support the claim that some religious teachings classify some paradoxes as dialetheias. I couldn't access the Graham book, but neither of the other sources mentions paradoxical statements as being considered both true and false at the same time. Please note that one of them must obtain independent of the other. Merely holding that a statement would be true iff it was false is simple logic, not a dialetheia. Paradoctor (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not all religion. There are multiple Eastern traditions. The South Asian traditions can be religious, in the Western sense (in fact one could argue that Western religious traditions stem from India). However the East Asian traditions have secular empire mixed up with them. It is part of Chinese literature that Empire is to be ruled by ritual ("You won the world on horseback, but you will lose it on horseback"— said the scholar-bureaucrat to the founder of the Han dynasty, meaning that appeal to rite is necessary to rule an empire peacefully, and not all rites are religious, for example, a rite of passage.). Perhaps I might email you p.334 of Graham. Failing that, might I recommend Joseph Needham Science and Civilisation in China (I admit it's 27 volumes and counting). Briefly, Chinese civilization is old, wise, and vital (capable of resilient response to change). So the formulations of the Mohists, 2200 years ago, were subsumed into the literature of China, long ago. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 17:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There are other sources of paradox:
 * Ivan Niven (1959) Mathematics: a House built on Sand?,
 * Galileo (1638) Two new sciences, his discovery of a hierarchy of infinities
 * Mandate of heaven -- it's not 'divine right of kings', it's 'winner take all', after cutting the Gordian knot. After all, Aristotle was the teacher of the man who cut it. --17:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Appears to contradict itself": confusing and wrong definition
The article opens with the definitive claim that paradoxes appear to contradict themselves. That's inconsistent with some of the classic paradoxes in philosophy as well as examples the article proceeds to give. For instance, the Ship of Theseus story doesn't contradict itself at all--it just illustrates the paradoxical idea that two things can be identical while sharing none of the same parts. Similarly, Zeno's paradox that motion is impossible doesn't contradict itself. It just contradicts what seems to be the case, namely, that sometimes things move. The same goes with the Socratic paradoxes like everyone seeks the good and weakness of will is impossible.

The problematic definition seems to be uncritically lifted from general purpose dictionaries. That's probably not a good idea, given that the dominant use of paradox as a concept is technical, viz., in the sense used by philosophy and logic.76.98.100.238 (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC) (This post was edited to fix a mistake on 1/28. Same user, different IP:158.130.215.110 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

pandion-enwiki 10/28/2015 14:43 EDT - here's a more complete definition: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandion~enwiki (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Anything is Possible paradox
It can be explained simply as: "If anything is possible, then it could be false because it's possible." Any thoughts?--69.223.184.228 (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand. if anything is possible, it should be true because being true is a form of being possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.138.12.75 (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So is being false. Which would mean it is possible that "anything is possible" is both true and false at the same time. You might be interested in this Stack Exchange discussion.
 * But please refrain from further discussion here, per WP:TALK: . Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * this is discussing the article. we are discussing whether we should add this paradox to this article. 103.114.211.135 (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"Is the answer to this question 'No'?"
This question has multiple answers. The paradoxical responses are "yes", "no", and all affirmative responses. However, we are not required to use them; we can use unsure responses, such as "I don't know". We can also use terms synonymous with "no", such as "it isn't". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.218.145 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See also false alternative --Ancheta Wis   (talk  | contribs) 23:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Original Research
This article has a Template:original research wikibox. What original research is it alleged to contain? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The tag was added in November 2014, by user . Hereby pinged. - DVdm (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Paradox - In logistics
Okay, some seem to have an issue with the following..

In logistics

In Systemic Thinking: Building Maps for Worlds of Systems, John Boardman and Brian Sauser discuss, "the process of understanding how systems influence one another within a world of systems and has been defined as an approach to problem solving by viewing 'problems' as parts of an overall system, rather than reacting to a specific part, outcome, or event." [17] A paradox in systemic thinking, is when the system itself is ignored and the outcome is the focus. The Sauser Paradox addresses this conundrum.

The Sauser Paradox – when someone’s hard work or good deeds are not recognized because of cultural, social, or political self-serving bias.[18] Also referred to as “Being Sausered.”

Discussion

The paradox has wide application in business, politics, and theory development in real-time. There has been a raging debate in America for some time over prisons, if they work so well then why do two-thirds (68 percent) get arrested again within three years.[19] Rather than celebrate that prisons and prison workers keep convicts in check, we focus on the convicts that come out and commit crimes again. Rather than spend money on improving convicts so they do not commit crimes again, we build more prisons. The focus is on outcomes, rather than systems.

Politics

America seemingly divided over the election of Donald Trump, Americans struggle to understand.[20][21][22] While many Democrats seem steadfast in their rebellion, Tomi Lahren channels the Republican dismay at such rebellion.[23][24] Donald Trump claims to want to put America First with a focus on keeping jobs in America[25] and increasing border security[26] The Sauser Paradox, predicts that regardless of how successful Donald Trump is as the 45th U.S. President, he will still be deplored by some in spite of his sacrifice and hard work.[27] "Donald Trump has been Sausered."

Political Paradox Discussion

A paradoxical reaction to a Donald Trump is the opposite of what one would expect, such as disagreeing with the process that led to this outcome.[28] Advocates exist in all levels of government and are a daily function of government: House of Representatives, Congressmen, Governors, City Council. The Sauser Paradox reflects a more complex system than simple liar paradox, or direct contradiction and recursive vicious circularity; this paradox reflects becoming agitated by your advocate or thinking advocating for ones charge somehow harms someone else, regardless of what they do, rather than how your advocate was selected. In being angry at the outcome of the election, rather than the process that lead to that outcome, protestors are arguing first against themselves, second against their advocate, and finally against an outcome that cannot be change by any level of protesting. The paradoxical context places no right or wrong on the discussion, it only identifies the focus should be the system to spark change[29], not the outcome.[30]

I am listening... User:Mbcopeland

 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks.
 * Again you have reverted. Reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - DVdm (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 * A few examples:
 * This does not look like a wp:reliable source.
 * This source does not mention "paradox".
 * The statement "Rather than celebrate that prisons and prison workers keep convicts in check, we focus on the convicts that come out and commit crimes again. Rather than spend money on improving convicts so they do not commit crimes again, we build more prisons. The focus is on outcomes, rather than systems." is unsourced..
 * Why_was_the_page_I_created_deleted is a wp:CIRCULAR source, and it does not even mention "paradox".
 * - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Also, regarding the section title Editors without degrees, please note that Wikipedia is not a textbook (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) and we don't need degrees to discuss, accept or dismiss contributions. - DVdm (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 * You are trying to source discussions, that is not consistent with any existing Wiki page. Statements are the most basic and fundamental critical thinking and writing, and logical extension from the source material.  Possibly you would prefer I simply state it here, and explain it on its own page?  The discussion of the concept, exactly like the drugs above, is used to explain the concept, if I have to source a discussion, then why does Wikipedia exist?  I am trying to improve Wiki, and unless you have read General Systems Theory (Boulding, 19567) and the Sauser book, I cannot help you understand.  User:Mbcopeland (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT. Thanks.
 * I am not trying to source discussions. - DVdm (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 * But the discussion was exactly what you complained about. - User:Mbcopeland
 * Possibly you could note a sentence by sentence issue, because at this point even I cannot tell what your issue is with what was there. - User:Mbcopeland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.67.134 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Mbcopeland, please see the wp:synth policy. Please cite a secondary source for your contribution. Probably a tertiary source is not yet available for us to cite here, but if you have one, all the better. But if you have published work on the topic of paradox, it would not qualify as a citation, because self-cited work would be a conflict of interest. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  | contribs) 22:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Mbcopeland I found a tertiary citation about systems, but it also suffers from the SYNTH defect. Although the writer discusses systems, his article does not mention 'paradox'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  | contribs) 12:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Logical paradox section
This section is very poorly written. The example sentence "This statement is false" is used to illustrate self-reference, contradiction, and vicious circularity. The example "is the answer to this question 'no'?" was examined earlier on this talk page, it is not a paradox because the answers are not limited to yes or no ("I don't know" is a valid answer). The genie example is a poor one because refusing to grant that particular wish does not mean that wishes in general cannot come true. The surgeon's son is not a paradox, it is a riddle. It has a valid answer, but many people over look it due to preconceived notions.--Khajidha (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Paradox simply means self-contradiction.
The article seems abit bloated. I would suggest that "Paradox means self-contradiction", made more clear in the article. In the light of greek culture, that is how it should be used. And it is not to be used as "transcendent" either, which is something else. Such as for instance "transcendent infiniteness", which is not a number, and not really a self-contradiction either. Indeed in this many go wrong, even people like Einstein, who though is populary believed to have opium in his pipe ;) One may indeed argue that there is no such thing as relativity quite well. Sky Charz (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The dictionaries disagree. Paradox can also mean "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory". About relativity one my argue anything, but not here: see wp:NOTFORUM. We have Speaker's corner for that. - DVdm (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that is the same bloat. Sky Charz (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you need a citation to improve the article in an enduring way. You are welcome to suggest edits, but the changes would need a citation, such as "In the view of ___" (___ means a reliable source, and the quotation). --Ancheta Wis   (talk  | contribs) 13:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

sound reasoning
sound

- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/of%20sound%20mind

- http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/ 23h112e (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

reasoning - https://www.google.co.uk/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-GB%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7LENP&dcr=0&ei=QfARWr3iAcm-aJywqsgL&q=reasoning&oq=reasoning&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67k1j0l9.3195.5244.0.5518.9.9.0.0.0.0.134.1075.0j9.9.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.1067...0i131k1.0.p6XjxBZK6bE

23h112e (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 * The literature disagrees with you:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"

! Google !! Scholar !! Books !! Web
 * "Sound reasoning"
 * 20,800
 * 126,000
 * 400.000
 * }
 * - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * }
 * - DVdm (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem
There are a lot of incomplete descriptions of the Monty Hall problem. Different descriptions yield different probabilities. For example, if the "common sense" is that Monty Hall will reveal the best remaining prize to keep you from picking it, then the odds favor not switching. If the "common sense" is that he will reveal the worst remaining prize, then the odds favor switching. If the "common sense" is that he will pick at random, then it depends what was revealed. 108.51.205.136 (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead sentence
It's true that the source says a paradox "appears... contrary to expectations." Is it possible then that this is simply a bad (i.e. overly general) definition? I assume we'd agree that someone saying "That giraffe's face has been painted purple!" is a statement "contrary to expectations"... and yet not a paradox. Maybe we can find a better definition/source? Wolfdog (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * (no need to ping me here) "painted purple!" Expectations are subjective. What is surprising to you may be old hat to someone else. Yes, that means "paradox" is subjective.
 * "can find a better" I don't know if you can, but why not go ahead and try. Though, if you take issue with "contrary to expectations", you take issue with a core aspect of paradox, IMO. I recommend you look at a few dictionaries and philosophical texts discussing the concept. Mathematical sources tend to have a too narrow focus here, IMO. Happy hunting, Paradoctor (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand the subjectivity; almost everything is subjective, of course. In that vein, you'll recall that my edit deliberately avoided using any "expectations" talk at all. My painted-purple statement is not self-contradictory (therefore not a paradox), whereas, for example, "standing is more tiring than walking" at least arguably is. It seems to me that the core aspect isn't "contrary to (subjective) expectations" but rather "contrary to valid logical reasoning". Anyway, I'll do some digging at some point. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If we look at Lexico (Oxford), we see that contradiction is, in fact, the core of each of the three definitions given. Nothing about expectations given. Wolfdog (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Not all sources are complete (or competent). Surely that is not the only source you could find, apart from the ones already in the article? Paradoctor (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxford University Press is about as authoritative as it gets, but whatever you say! That's literally all the sources I've looked at so far, and I was immediately validated. So, a pretty promising first look! Wolfdog (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Post-revert: Once again, I disagree with your revert here. Even veridical paradoxes align nicely to the idea of "contradiction" or "self-contradiction". A veridical paradox is a "logically self-contradictory statement" (exactly as I defined) that is, nevertheless, true. So actually it perfectly fits within my reduced definition. Yet again, "one's expectations", though perhaps common, are neither necessary nor sufficient to the definition of paradox.Wolfdog (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Added SEP citation. Paradoctor (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hegel and Marx
The article generally draws on formal logic as the basis for its conception of paradox/contradiction. There is no *dialectical* conception as we find in Hegel and Marx. For both Hegel and Marx, the world of Man, Nature and Mind is *inherently* self-contradictory. This is why, in their conception, it has movement, life, vitality, impulse. Many students of formal logic have not taken the trouble to grasp this in Hegel and Marx because they have never made a comprehensive, detailed and involved study of them. In Hegel and Marx, contradiction ('paradox') is seen as the 'engine of change' in all its forms. It is not simply 'static' or merely 'formal' https://archive.org/details/georg-wilhelm-hegel-the-science-of-logic/mode/2up?view=theater Advancingreturns (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Origins and etymology
I think this article would benefit from a short section on the origins of the idea of a paradox, which as far as I know was with Zeno of Elea, and the etymology of the word, which I think helps people grasp the meaning. My limited understanding is that 'para' means something like 'contrary to' and 'dox' comes from 'doxa' which means 'common understanding/observation/opinion'. See here. LastDodo (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Paradox is a seeming contradiction
A contradiction can be a seeming paradox.The latter might require a new term other than paradox.

Science must per definition be completely consistent in terms, definitions, and descriptions.

Paradox is incorrectly because not unambigiously defined in science when also meaning a contradiction. Gerhard Ris (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 * We go by the sources, not what we think should be. And ambiguity does exist in science. Lastly, words can have several meanings, that's quite normal. HTH, Paradoctor (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionary: A statement or proposition which on the face of it seems self-contradictory, absurd, or at variance with common sense, though, on investigation or when explained, it may prove to be well-founded (or, according to some, though it is essentially true).
 * "We go by the sources" is circular argument fallacy. "Science" defines the exact opposite.
 * Science, in the courts of law, and schools all elementary terms such as paradox must be completely consistent. Otherwise it's a pseudo scientific con job. Gerhard Ris (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We do in fact go by the sources here, see WP:V, WP:NOR. If you have objections to that Wikipedia may not be for you. MrOllie (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionary is a reliable source. The obvious fact that science uses paradox in both opposite ways must show explicitely in Wikipedia everytime the word paradox is defined. Otherwise under Dutch law it's a con job. Also tricking judges when scientists as legal experts state something is a paradox meaning a contradiction and the judges understand it as a seeming contradiction. Wikipedia must abide by the laws of decent countries. Gerhard Ris (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How many definitions of "paradox" does the OED list? For comparison, Merriam-Webster currently lists five. Among them are
 * "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true"
 * "a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true"
 * So M-W states that "paradox" can denote true statements as well as self-contradictory statements. A reliable source, no less.
 * I suggest if you want changes made to the article, you explicitly state what changes you want made, so we have something we can discuss without having to decide unsolved issues in the philosophy of science. Paradoctor (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, just add your source to the article at the beginning of the article.
 * Otherwise Wikipedia infringes on an other sourse namely the law in most democratic states.
 * An enciclopedia should be trustworthy. Thus this should be corrected in all languages.
 * As a warning that science mostly uses paradox to mean a contradiction and and others mostly as a truth.
 * The article now does as if only the scientific one is correct.
 * You obviously care about the form. I don't. I simply point to a serious legal and moral shortcomming. To which you so aptly provide the source as proof thereof. Gerhard Ris (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing legal or moral about the definitions that you can find here, among which the Oxford one. - DVdm (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * try any book of civil or penal law as a valid source. Performing con jobs is illegal in any legal system.
 * Wikipedia states in this article a paradox is always untrue. Yet Webster states also meaning untrue and Oxford Dictionaries as always true.
 * Doing this now knowingly makes Wikipedia liable to being succesfully sued when someone shows to have damages due to presenting willfull lies as not the whole truth. Ergo, fix it. Gerhard Ris (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are aware that we edit by WP:CONSENSUS? The discussion so far has made it clear that the consensus is that there is no issue here.
 * If you still feel this is worthy of your time, I suggest you contact WMF. Paradoctor (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Barber Paradox and gender neutral language
I propose we use male language when describing the barber paradox. Per WP:GNL, gendered-language can be used in a single-gendered context: The barber paradox relies on the assumption that every person involved shaves their face. Of course, some men don't shave, and some women do, but MOST men shave and MOST women don't. I think gender neutral language introduces unnecessary confusion, whereas, if we limit the language to male language, the paradox is clearer. Please note that the barber paradox article uses male language. —Of the universe (say hello) 00:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Seeing no objection, I am implementing this change. —Of the universe (say hello) 13:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Paradox


text:
Rambouillet Agreement

The Rambouillet Agreement, formally the Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo, was a proposed peace agreement between the delegation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia on the one hand and the delegation of political representatives of the ethnic Albanian majority population of Kosovo on the other. It was drafted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and named for the Château de Rambouillet, where it was initially proposed in early 1998. Among other things, the accords called for 30,000 NATO peacekeeping troops in Kosovo; an unhindered right of passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory; and immunity for NATO and its agents to Yugoslav law. The Kosovo Albanian side signed the agreement on 18 March 1999, however the refusal of the Yugoslav and Serbian side to sign the accords led to the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia.

Provisions
The provisions of the agreement included:

 * 1) "Kosovo will have a president, prime minister, and government, an assembly, its own Supreme Court, constitutional court and other courts."
 * 2) "Kosovo will have the authority to make laws not subject to revision by Serbia or the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including levying taxes, instituting programs of economic, scientific, technological, regional and social development, conducting foreign relations within its area of responsibility in the same manner as a Republic."
 * 3) "Yugoslav army forces and Serb security forces will withdraw completely from Kosovo, except for a limited border guard force (active only within a 5 kilometer border zone)."
 * 4) "The parties invite NATO to deploy a military force (KFOR), which will be authorized to use necessary force to ensure compliance with the accords."
 * 5) "The international community will play a role in ensuring that these provisions are carried out through a Civilian Implementation Mission (CIM) appointed by NATO".
 * 6) "The Chief of the CIM has the authority to issue binding directives to the Parties on all important matters he sees fit, including appointing and removing officials and curtailing institutions."
 * 7) "Three years after the implementation of the Accords, an international meeting will be convened to determine a mechanism for a final settlement for Kosovo on the basis of the will of its People."
 * 8) "NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations."
 * 9) "NATO is granted the use of airports roads, rails, and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use."
 * 10) "Yugoslavia and Kosovo shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the Operation, as determined by NATO, This shall include the right to utilize such means and services as required to assure full ability to communicate and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost."
 * 11) "In the conduct of the Operation, NATO may need to make improvements or modifications to certain infrastructure in the FRY, such as roads, bridges, tunnels, buildings, and utility systems."
 * 12) "NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal."
 * 13) "NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal or disciplinary offenses which may be committed by them in the FRY."
 * 14) "NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY."

Proposed autonomy for Kosovo
The Rambouillet Agreement included provisions for creating a system of democratic self-governance in Kosovo. It would have established three branches of government, a system of local government and law enforcement institutions.

Competencies
Kosovo would have the authority to make laws in areas it has competence including levying taxes, instituting programs of economic, scientific, technological, regional and social development, and could conduct foreign relations within its area of responsibility in the same manner as a republic within the federation.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would have competency over territorial integrity, maintaining a common market, monetary policy, defense, foreign policy, customs services, federal taxation, and federal elections. Serbia would have competence republic level elections in Kosovo. Kosovo would be entitled to at least 10 seats in the federal parliament and at least 20 seats in the Serbian parliament. The federal government would maintain border crossings at Kosovo's external borders with Albania and North Macedonia and would exercise authority in connection with the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Legislative branch
Kosovo was to have an 120 member assembly of which 80 would be directly elected. Of the remaining 40 members, 10 would be elected by communities representing between 0.5 and 5% and 30 would be shared equally between the Albanian and Serb communities. The assembly would be led by a president, two vice-presidents.

Executive branch
Kosovo would have had a president elected by the assembly for a three year term renewable once. Executive power would be exercised by a government led by a prime minister, proposed by the president and confirmed by the assembly.

Judicial branch
Kosovo was to have a constitutional court, a supreme court, district courts, and communal courts. The constitutional court and supreme court would each have 9 judges. An office of the prosecutor, led by a chief prosecutor, would be responsible for prosecuting individuals who violate the criminal laws of Kosovo. With the exception of immigration and customs related crimes, any person arrested within Kosovo would subject to the jurisdiction of the Kosovo courts. The rights and freedoms set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights would apply directly in Kosovo. An ombudsman institution would be established to protect human and community rights in Kosovo.

Local government
Kosovo's existing communes would continue to exist and would elect their own assemblies and executive councils.

Law enforcement
Communal police units would be established throughout Kosovo with responsibility police patrols, crime prevention, criminal investigations, arrest and detention of criminal suspects, crowd control, and traffic control. Communal police officers may be equipped with a sidearm, handcuffs, a baton, and, a radio and would be required to wear a badge, picture identification, and name tag. Each unit would be led by a communal commander, appointed by the local communal assembly. A criminal justice administration would be established to coordinate law enforcement operations across Kosovo.

Negotiating parties
The negotiations were chaired by British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine. At times, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer also took part in the talks.

Three parties were involved in the negotiations:

 * the Contact Group, which included representatives from the United States, the European Union and Russia; Christopher Hill for the US, Wolfgang Petritsch for the EU and Boris Majorski for Russia).

 * the 16-member delegation of Kosovo Albanians: Hashim Thaçi (leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army), Ibrahim Rugova (the leader of the ethnic Albanian community in Kosovo), philosophy professor and Rugova confidant Fehmi Agani, journalist Veton Surroi, Rexhep Qosja, KLA spokesman Jakup Krasniqi, former Rugova employee and KLA representative Ram Buja, among others.

 * the delegation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was initially led by Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Ratko Marković before Serbian President Milan Milutinović took over the leadership when he joined the delegation at the beginning of the second week of negotiations, on 13 February. The deligation included Federal Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Šainović, Federal Deputy Prime Minister Vladan Kutlešić, Serbian Deputy Government Spokesman Vladimir Stambuk, Chairman of the Socialist Party in Kosovo Vojislav Živković, Member of the Kosovo and Methoja Provisional Executive Council Guljbehar Sabović, the representative of the national Muslim community Refik Senadović, the representative of the Turkish national community and the Turkish Democratic Party Zejnelabidin Kurejs, representative of the national community of the Gorans Ibro Vait, President of the Kosovo Democratic Initiative Faik Jasari, President of the Democratic Reform Party of Albanians Sokolj Cuse, the representative of the Roma national community Ljuan Koka, the representative of the Egyptian national community Cerim Abazi.

Rambouillet
On 23 February 1999, the co-chairmen Robin Cook and Hubert Védrine of the negotiation process put out a statement saying that the negotiations "have led to a consensus" on substantial autonomy for Kosovo, including on mechanisms for free and fair elections to democratic institutions, for the governance of Kosovo, for the protection of human rights and the rights of members of national communities; and for the establishment of a fair judicial system". They went on to say that "a political framework is now in place" leaving the further work of finalizing "the implementation Chapters of the Agreement, including the modalities of the invited international civilian and military presence in Kosovo". However, this assessment was at best overly optimistic, and at worst absolutely ignored the divergence of interests between the two major parties. The Albanians were unwilling to accept a solution that would retain Kosovo as part of Serbia, while the Serbs did not want to see the pre-1990 status quo restored, and they were implacably opposed to any international role in the governance of the province, including the offer of a face-saving measure wherein blue-helmeted UN peacekeeping troops would be used instead of NATO troops. To add to the problem, the NATO Contact Group countries were desperate to avoid having to make good on their threat of force—Greece and Italy were opposed to the idea. Consequently, when the talks failed to achieve an agreement by the original deadline of 19 February, they were extended by another month.

Paris
In the end, on 18 March 1999, the Kosovo Albanian, American and British delegation signed what became known as the 'Rambouillet Accords' while the Serbian and Russian delegations refused. The accords called for NATO administration of Kosovo as an autonomous region within Yugoslavia; a force of 30,000 NATO troops to maintain order in Kosovo; an unhindered right of passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory, including Kosovo; and immunity for NATO and its agents to Yugoslav law. In addition, NATO forces would have the right to use local roads, ports, railways, and airports without payment of duties, dues, tolls or charges, as well as the right to use the electromagnetic spectrum without payment. NATO would also have the right to requisition public facilities for its use free of cost. NATO forces would have the right to hire local personnel who upon employment with NATO would be exempt from local laws in respect to acts performed in their official capacity, national service obligations, local labor laws, and taxes on their salaries. Local infrastructure would be subjected to improvements or modifications to by NATO forces when deemed necessary to facilitate the mission. According to Tim Judah, the Serbian side used Annex B only later on as a reason for the failure of talks; at the time, the Serbs rejected any discussion of the involvement of foreign troops, let alone the extensive rights that would have been afforded them by Annex B.

Signing
The agreement was signed by Ibrahim Rugova, Hashim Thaçi, Rexhep Qosja and Veton Surroi on behalf of "Kosovo" in the presence of Christopher Hill and Wolfgang Petritsch on 18 March 1999. The delegation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia did not sign the agreement.

Aftermath
Events proceeded rapidly after the failure at Rambouillet. The international monitors from the OSCE were withdrawn on 22 March for fear of the monitors' safety ahead of the anticipated bombing by NATO. On 23 March, the Serbian assembly issued a resolution that condemned the withdrawal of the OSCE monitors, and accepted the principle of "autonomy" for Kosovo and non-military part of the agreement.

NATO leaders had expected that a brief bombing campaign would lead to Serb forces withdrawing from Kosovo, hence ending the humanitarian crisis; but Milošević may have gambled that his government and armed forces could withstand a few days of bombing without serious harm.

Reactions
In commentary released to the press, former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared that:

"The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form." The historian Christopher Clark supports this view, asserting that the terms of the 1914 Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia appear lenient compared to the NATO demands.

A former hand on the State Department's Yugoslavia desk, George Kenney, reported in May 1999 that a senior State Department official had briefed journalists off the record that "[we] deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept".

For the Serbs, signing the Rambouillet agreement would actually have been signing away all Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo. It was not even a "take it or leave it" proposition, as Secretary of State Albright emphasized back in February 1999; rather, it was "sign it or get bombed." There were, in fact, no negotiations at all, and no sovereign, independent state would have signed the Rambouillet agreement.

Historian Noel Malcolm wrote that as the Kosovo Albanian delegation signed the agreement on the 18th, the Yugoslav delegation boycotted the ceremony and declared its opposition to the plan and that military maneuvers were being planned, so that by March 20 there were more than 26,000 Serbian troops inside the province and another 15,000 stationed just beyond its eastern border.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rambouillet Agreement


text:
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

The speaker of the United States House of Representatives, commonly known as the speaker of the House, is the presiding officer of the United States House of Representatives. The office was established in 1789 by Article I, Section II, of the U.S. Constitution. By custom and House rules, the speaker is the political and parliamentary leader of the House and is simultaneously its presiding officer, de facto leader of the body's majority party, and the institution's administrative head. Speakers also perform various other administrative and procedural functions. Given these several roles and responsibilities, the speaker usually does not personally preside over debatesthat duty is instead delegated to members of the House from the majority partynor regularly participate in floor debates.

The Constitution does not explicitly require the speaker to be an incumbent member of the House of Representatives, although every speaker thus far has been, and as a member the speaker also represents their district and retains the right to vote. The speaker is second in the United States presidential line of succession, after the vice president and ahead of the president pro tempore of the Senate.

The 56th and current Speaker of the House is Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana.

Selection
The House elects its speaker at the beginning of a new Congress,, after a general election, or when a speaker dies, resigns, or is removed from the position during a congressional term. At the start of a new Congress, those voting to elect the speaker are representatives-elect, as a speaker must be selected before members are sworn in to office; the House of Representatives cannot organize or take other legislative actions until a speaker is elected.

Since 1839, the House has elected speakers by roll call vote. In practice, each party's caucus or conference selects a candidate for the speakership from among its senior leaders prior to the roll call. To be elected speaker, a candidate must receive a majority of votes from the members present and voting. If no candidate wins a majority, the roll call is repeated until a speaker is elected. Representatives are free to vote for someone other than the candidate nominated by their party but generally do not, as the outcome of the election effectively demonstrates which party has the majority and consequently will organize the House.

Representatives who choose to vote for someone other than their party's nominee usually vote for someone else in their party or vote "present", in which case their vote does not count in tallying the vote positively or negatively. Anyone who votes for the other party's candidate could face serious consequences, as was the case when Democrat James Traficant voted for Republican Dennis Hastert in 2001 (107th Congress). In response, the Democrats stripped him of his seniority, and he lost all of his committee posts.

Upon election, the new speaker is sworn in by the dean of the United States House of Representatives, the chamber's longest-serving member. Additionally, it is customary for the outgoing speaker, or the minority leader, to hand the speaker's gavel to the new speaker, as a mark of the peaceful transition of power.

Eligibility of non-members
While every speaker of the House has been a sitting House member, Article I, Section II, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, concerning the choosing of a speaker, does not explicitly state House membership as a requirement. As noted by the Congressional Research Service, non-members have, on multiple occasions since 1997, received votes in speaker elections. In 1787, while the proposed Constitution was being considered, Pennsylvania Congress of the Confederation Delegate Tench Coxe publicly wrote the following:

"The house of representatives is not, as the Senate, to have a president chosen for them from without their body, but are to elect their speaker from their own number . . .."

Noting that the Vesting Clause of Article I, Section I states that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives", political scientist Diana Schaub has argued, "Legislative powers cannot be lodged in the hands of a non-legislative person. To do so would violate the fundamental purpose of Article [I] of the Constitution." Both Schaub and the CRS note that the Standing Rules and Orders of the House created by the 1st United States Congress provided that the Speaker would vote "In all cases of ballot by the [H]ouse", while former House Intelligence Committee General Counsel Michael Ellis and attorney Greg Dubinsky have argued that the Speaker must be a House member because the Speaker performs various legislative functions that other House officers (such as the Sergeant at Arms and the Clerk) do not perform.

Schaub and the CRS also note that the text of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 assumes that the Speaker is a House member in requiring the Speaker's resignation upon succession to the Presidency due to the Ineligibility Clause of Article I, Section VI. The Ineligibility Clause provides that "No ... Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States... and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of [the] House during his Continuance in Office." Along with political scientist Matthew J. Franck, Schaub, Ellis, and Dubinsky argue that permitting a Senator or an executive or judicial officer of the federal government to serve as a non-member Speaker would cause a significant breach of the constitutional separation of powers.

Schaub, Ellis, and Dubinsky also argue that permitting a non-member to serve as Speaker would effectively exempt Speakers from the eligibility requirements of the House Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section II and from being bound by an oath of office under the Oath or Affirmation Clause of Article VI as opposed to House members. The House Qualifications Clause requires that "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States". The Oath or Affirmation Clause provides that "The ... Representatives before mentioned... and all executive and judicial Officers ... of the United States... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". Pursuant to Article VI, the 1st United States Congress passed the Oath Administration Act (that remains in effect) which provides that "...the oath or affirmation [required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States]… shall be administered ... to the Speaker".

Like the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014), Ellis and Dubinsky cite an 1819 letter written by James Madison to Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Judge Spencer Roane where Madison stated that "difficulties and differences of opinion [arising] in expounding terms [and] phrases ... used [in the Constitution]... might require a regular course of practice to liquidate [and] settle the meaning of some of them." In holding in NLRB v. Noel Canning that the Recess Appointments Clause of Article II, Section II does not authorize the President to make appointments while the Senate is in pro forma sessions, the Supreme Court cited Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) in concluding that "The longstanding 'practice of the government' ... can inform [the] determination of 'what the law is.

Speaker pro tempore
Under the Rules of the House, the speaker may designate a member to serve as speaker pro tempore, acting as the body's presiding officer in the speaker's absence. In most instances, the speaker pro tempore designation lasts for no more than three legislative days, although in the case of illness of the speaker, the speaker pro tempore may serve for ten legislative days if the appointment is approved by the House.

Separately, a speaker pro tempore is designated in the event the office of the speaker is declared vacant. Under the current Rules of the House, at the start of their term, the speaker is required to create a secret ordered list of members to temporarily serve as speaker of the House if the speakership became vacant and to provide the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives this list "as soon as practicable after" the election "and whenever appropriate thereafter." The names are only revealed in the event of a vacancy (e.g., by the speaker's death, resignation, incapacitation, or removal from office). This "succession list" procedure was created in 2003, following the September 11, 2001 attacks, to promote continuity of government. Rule I, clause 8 of the House Rules states the member whose name appears first on the list "shall act as Speaker pro tempore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore." The speaker pro tempore is not in the line of succession for the presidency.

Following the removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker in October 2023 on a motion to vacate (the first time in history that a speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was successfully removed by the House), Patrick McHenry was revealed to be the first name on McCarthy's list and became acting speaker. The intent of the rule was for the speaker pro tempore to serve for a short period, until the House elected a new speaker, but the House rules set no specific limit on the length of time that a member may be speaker pro tempore.

The designation of a speaker pro tempore for purposes of succession, and for purposes of serving as the body's presiding officer in the speaker's absence, is separate from the speaker's designation of multiple members as speakers pro tempore for the purpose of allowing them to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions. The House Rules state: "With the approval of the House, the Speaker may appoint a Member to act as Speaker pro tempore only to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions for a specified period of time." The list of the members with this duty (usually political allies of the speaker, or members from districts close to Washington and thus better able to hold pro forma sessions) is made public.

History
The first speaker of the House, Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, was elected to office on April 1, 1789, the day the House organized itself at the start of the 1st Congress. He served two non-consecutive terms in the speaker's chair, 1789–1791 (1st Congress) and 1793–1795 (3rd Congress).

As the Constitution does not state the duties of the speaker, the speaker's role has largely been shaped by rules and customs that evolved over time. Scholars are divided as to whether early speakers played largely ceremonial and impartial roles or whether they were more active partisan actors.

19th century
From early in its existence, the speaker's primary function had been to keep order and enforce rules. The speakership was transformed into a position with power over the legislative process under Henry Clay (1811–1814, 1815–1820, and 1823–1825). In contrast to many of his predecessors, Clay participated in several debates and used his influence to procure the passage of measures he supported—for instance, the declaration of the War of 1812, and various laws relating to Clay's "American System" economic plan. Furthermore, when no candidate received an Electoral College majority in the 1824 presidential election, causing the president to be elected by the House, Speaker Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams instead of Andrew Jackson, thereby ensuring Adams' victory. Following Clay's retirement in 1825, the power of the speakership once again began to decline, despite speakership elections becoming increasingly bitter. As the Civil War approached, several sectional factions nominated their own candidates, often making it difficult for any candidate to attain a majority. In 1855 and again in 1859, for example, the contest for speaker lasted for two months before the House achieved a result. Speakers tended to have very short tenures during this period. For example, from 1839 to 1863 there were eleven speakers, only one of whom served for more than one term. James K. Polk is the only speaker of the House who was later elected president of the United States.

Toward the end of the 19th century, the office of speaker began to develop into a very powerful one. At the time, one of the most important sources of the speaker's power was his position as Chairman of the Committee on Rules, which, after the reorganization of the committee system in 1880, became one of the most powerful standing committees of the House. Furthermore, several speakers became leading figures in their political parties; examples include Democrats Samuel J. Randall, John Griffin Carlisle, and Charles F. Crisp, and Republicans James G. Blaine, Thomas Brackett Reed, and Joseph Gurney Cannon.

The power of the speaker was greatly augmented during the tenure of the Republican Thomas Brackett Reed (1889–1891, 1895–1899). "Czar Reed", as he was called by his opponents, sought to end the obstruction of bills by the minority, in particular by countering the tactic known as the "disappearing quorum". By refusing to vote on a motion, the minority could ensure that a quorum would not be achieved and that the result would be invalid. Reed, however, declared that members who were in the chamber but refused to vote would still count for the purposes of determining a quorum. Through these and other rulings, Reed ensured that the Democrats could not block the Republican agenda.

20th century

The speakership reached its apogee during the term of Republican Joseph Gurney Cannon (1903–1911). Cannon exercised extraordinary control over the legislative process. He determined the agenda of the House, appointed the members of all committees, chose committee chairmen, headed the Rules Committee, and determined which committee heard each bill. He vigorously used his powers to ensure that Republican proposals were passed by the House. In 1910, however, Democrats and several dissatisfied Republicans joined to strip Cannon of many of his powers, including the ability to name committee members and his chairmanship of the Rules Committee. Fifteen years later, Speaker Nicholas Longworth restored much, but not all, of the lost influence of the position.

One of the most influential speakers in history was Democrat Sam Rayburn. Rayburn had the most cumulative time as speaker in history, holding office from 1940 to 1947, 1949 to 1953, and 1955 to 1961. He helped shape many bills, working quietly in the background with House committees. He also helped ensure the passage of several domestic measures and foreign assistance programs advocated by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Rayburn's successor, Democrat John W. McCormack (served 1962–1971), was a somewhat less influential speaker, particularly because of dissent from younger members of the Democratic Party. During the mid-1970s, the power of the speakership once again grew under Democrat Carl Albert. The Committee on Rules ceased to be a semi-independent panel, as it had been since 1910. Instead, it once again became an arm of the party leadership. Moreover, in 1975, the speaker was granted the authority to appoint a majority of the members of the Rules Committee. Meanwhile, the power of committee chairmen was curtailed, further increasing the relative influence of the speaker.

Albert's successor, Democrat Tip O'Neill, was a prominent speaker because of his public opposition to the policies of President Ronald Reagan. O'Neill is the longest continuously serving speaker, from 1977 through 1987. He challenged Reagan on domestic programs and on defense expenditures. Republicans made O'Neill the target of their election campaigns in 1980 and 1982 but Democrats managed to retain their majorities in both years.

The roles of the parties reversed in 1994 when, after spending forty years in the minority, the Republicans regained control of the House with the "Contract with America", an idea spearheaded by Minority Whip Newt Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich would regularly clash with Democratic President Bill Clinton, leading to the United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996, in which Clinton was largely seen to have prevailed. Gingrich's hold on the leadership was weakened significantly by that and several other controversies, and he faced a caucus revolt in 1997. After the Republicans lost House seats in 1998 (although retaining a majority) he did not stand for a third term as speaker. His successor, Dennis Hastert, had been chosen as a compromise candidate since the other Republicans in the leadership were more controversial. Hastert played a much less prominent role than other contemporary speakers, being overshadowed by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and President George W. Bush.

21st century
The Republicans came out of the 2000 elections with a further reduced majority but made small gains in 2002 and 2004. The periods of 2001–2002 and 2003–2007 were the first times since 1953–1955 that there was single-party Republican leadership in Washington, interrupted from 2001 to 2003 as Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party to become independent and caucused with Senate Democrats to give them a 51–49 majority.

In the 2006 midterm elections, the Democratic Party regained control of the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House, becoming the first woman to hold the position.

President Bush acknowledged Pelosi as the first woman in that position in the opening of his speech.

John Boehner was elected speaker when the 112th Congress convened on January 5, 2011, and was subsequently re-elected twice, at the start of the 113th and 114th Congresses. On both of those occasions his remaining in office was threatened by the defection of several members from his own party who chose not to vote for him. Boehner's tenure as speaker, which ended when he resigned from Congress in October 2015, was marked by multiple battles with the conservatives in his own party related to "Obamacare", appropriations, among other political issues. This intra-party discord continued under Boehner's successor, Paul Ryan. When Republican leader John Boehner succeeded Pelosi as speaker in 2011, Pelosi remained the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives and served as House minority leader for eight years before she led her party to victory in the 2018 elections. Following the 2018 midterm elections which saw the election of a Democratic Party majority in the House, Nancy Pelosi was again elected speaker when the 116th Congress convened on January 3, 2019. In addition to being the first woman to hold the office, Pelosi became the first speaker to return to power since Sam Rayburn in the 1950s. Following the 2022 midterm elections which saw the election of a narrow Republican Party majority in the House, Pelosi did not seek a Democratic leadership post in the next Congress. The Democratic Caucus named her "Speaker Emerita".

Kevin McCarthy then became the new Speaker of the House on January 7, 2023, after the longest multi-ballot speaker election since 1859. McCarthy was eventually removed as speaker on October 3, 2023, after a further split in the Republican caucus, with five House Freedom Caucus members voting against McCarthy, which when combined with votes of Democrats, resulted in the ouster of McCarthy. This was the first time in the history of the House of Representatives in which the Speaker of the House was successfully removed. Following a multi-day four-ballot election, Mike Johnson was elected speaker on October 25, 2023.

Notable elections
Historically, there have been several controversial elections to the speakership, such as the contest of 1839. In that case, even though the 26th United States Congress convened on December 2, the House could not begin the speakership election until December 14 because of an election dispute in New Jersey known as the "Broad Seal War". Two rival delegations, one Whig and the other Democrat, had been certified as elected by different branches of the New Jersey government. The problem was compounded by the fact that the result of the dispute would determine whether the Whigs or the Democrats held the majority. Neither party agreed to permit a speakership election with the opposite party's delegation participating. Finally, it was agreed to exclude both delegations from the election and a speaker was finally chosen on December 17.

Another, more prolonged fight occurred in 1855 in the 34th United States Congress. The old Whig Party had collapsed but no single party had emerged to replace it. Candidates opposing the Democrats had run under a bewildering variety of labels, including Whig, Republican, American (Know Nothing), and simply "Opposition". By the time Congress actually met in December 1855, most of the northerners were concentrated together as Republicans, while most of the southerners and a few northerners used the American or Know Nothing label. Opponents of the Democrats held a majority in House, with the party makeup of the 234 representatives being 83 Democrats, 108 Republicans, and 43 Know Nothings (primarily southern oppositionists). The Democratic minority nominated William Alexander Richardson of Illinois as speaker, but because of sectional distrust, the various oppositionists were unable to agree on a single candidate for speaker. The Republicans supported Nathaniel Prentice Banks of Massachusetts, who had been elected as a Know Nothing but was now largely identified with the Republicans. The southern Know Nothings supported first Humphrey Marshall of Kentucky, and then Henry M. Fuller of Pennsylvania. The voting went on for almost two months with no candidate able to secure a majority, until it was finally agreed to elect the speaker by plurality vote, and Banks was elected.

The House found itself in a similar dilemma when the 36th Congress met in December 1859. Although the Republicans held a plurality, the Republican candidate, John Sherman, was unacceptable to southern oppositionists due to his anti-slavery views, and once again the House was unable to elect a speaker. After Democrats allied with southern oppositionists to nearly elect the North Carolina oppositionist William N. H. Smith, Sherman finally withdrew in favor of compromise candidate William Pennington of New Jersey, a former Whig of unclear partisan loyalties, who was finally elected speaker on February 1, 1860.

In December 1923, at the start of the 68th Congress, Republican Frederick H. Gillett needed nine ballots to win reelection. Progressive Republicans had refused to support Gillett in the first eight ballots. Only after winning concessions from Republican conference leaders (a seat on the House Rules Committee and a pledge that requested House rules changes would be considered) did they agree to support him.

In 1997, several Republican congressional leaders tried to force Speaker Newt Gingrich to resign. However, Gingrich refused since that would have required a new election for speaker, which could have led to Democrats along with dissenting Republicans voting for Democrat Dick Gephardt (then minority leader) as speaker. After the 1998 midterm elections where the Republicans lost seats, Gingrich did not stand for re-election. The next two figures in the House Republican leadership hierarchy, Majority Leader Richard Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay chose not to run for the office. The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Bob Livingston, declared his bid for the speakership, which was unopposed, making him speaker-designate. It was then revealed, by Livingston himself, who had been publicly critical of President Bill Clinton's alleged perjury during his sexual harassment trial, that he had engaged in an extramarital affair. He opted to resign from the House, despite being urged to stay on by House Democratic leader Gephardt. Subsequently, the chief deputy whip Dennis Hastert was selected as speaker. The Republicans retained their majorities in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections.

The Democrats won a majority of seats in the 2006 midterm elections. On November 16, 2006, Nancy Pelosi, who was then minority leader, was selected as speaker-designate by House Democrats. When the 110th Congress convened on January 4, 2007, she was elected as the 52nd speaker by a vote of 233–202, becoming the first woman elected speaker of the House. Pelosi was reelected speaker in the 111th Congress, and again in the 116th and 117th Congresses.

The January 2023 speakership election occurred two months after the 2022 House elections in which the Republicans won a slim four-seat majority. Kevin McCarthy was nominated for speaker by the House Republican Conference but due to a division among the Republicans, no one received a majority of the votes on the first ballot, necessitating an additional round of balloting for the first time since 1923. McCarthy ultimately prevailed when the remaining six anti-McCarthy holdouts voted "present" on the 15th ballot, ending the longest multiple-ballot speaker election since before the Civil War. He was removed from office less than ten months later, the first time in American History the House voted to remove its incumbent speaker. This led to multiple rounds of voting across multiple weeks to replace him, ultimately leading to the election of Representative Mike Johnson. This came after two weeks of negotiations between Republicans, including three failed votes for Speaker.

Multi-ballot elections
In total, there have been 16 elections requiring multiple ballots to elect a speaker, with 13 before the American Civil War, one in 1923, and two in 2023.

Partisan role
The Constitution does not spell out the political role of the speaker. As the office has developed historically, however, it has taken on a clearly partisan cast, very different from the speakership of most Westminster-style legislatures, such as the speaker of the United Kingdom's House of Commons, which is meant to be scrupulously non-partisan. The speaker in the United States, by tradition, is the head of the majority party in the House of Representatives, outranking the majority leader. However, despite having the right to vote, the speaker usually does not participate in debate and only votes on the most significant bills.

The speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the speaker may use their influence over the Rules committee, which is in charge of the business of the House. The speaker chairs the majority party's House steering committee, which selects the majority members of each House standing committee, including the Rules committee (although it's worth to note their appointment to the said committees must be ratified by a resolution of the full House). While the speaker is the functioning head of the House majority party, the same is not true of the president pro tempore of the Senate, whose office is primarily ceremonial and honorary.

When the speaker and the president belong to the same party, the speaker tends to play the role in a more ceremonial light, as seen when Dennis Hastert played a very restrained role during the presidency of fellow Republican George W. Bush. Nevertheless, when the speaker and the president belong to the same party, there are also times that the speaker plays a much larger role, and the speaker is tasked, e.g., with pushing through the agenda of the majority party, often at the expense of the minority opposition. This can be seen, most of all, in the speakership of Democratic-Republican Henry Clay, who personally ensured the presidential victory of fellow Democratic-Republican John Quincy Adams. Democrat Sam Rayburn was a key player in the passing of New Deal legislation under the presidency of fellow Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Republican Joseph Gurney Cannon (under Theodore Roosevelt) was particularly infamous for his marginalization of the minority Democrats and centralizing of authority to the speakership. In more recent times, Speaker Nancy Pelosi played a role in continuing the push for health care reform during the presidency of fellow Democrat Barack Obama and in pushing for increases in infrastructure and climate spending during the presidency of Democrat Joe Biden.

On the other hand, when the speaker and the president belong to opposite parties, the public role and influence of the speaker tend to increase. As the highest-ranking member of the opposition party (and de facto leader of the opposition), the speaker is normally the chief public opponent of the president's agenda. In this scenario, the speaker is known for undercutting the president's agenda by blocking measures by the minority party or rejecting bills by the Senate. One famous instance came in the form of Thomas Brackett Reed (under Grover Cleveland), a speaker notorious for his successful attempt to force the Democrats to vote on measures where the Republicans had clear majorities, which ensured that Cleveland's Democrats were in no position to challenge the Republicans in the House. Joseph Cannon was particularly unique in that he led the conservative "Old Guard" wing of the Republican Party, while his president—Theodore Roosevelt—was of the more progressive clique, and more than just marginalizing the Democrats, Cannon used his power to punish the dissidents in his party and obstruct the progressive wing of the Republican Party.

More modern examples include Tip O'Neill, who was a vocal opponent of President Ronald Reagan's economic and defense policies; Newt Gingrich, who fought a bitter battle with President Bill Clinton for control of domestic policy; Nancy Pelosi, who argued with President George W. Bush over the Iraq War; John Boehner, who clashed with President Barack Obama over budget issues and health care; and once again, Nancy Pelosi, who refused to support President Donald Trump over funding for a border wall.

Presiding officer
As presiding officer of the House of Representatives, the speaker holds a variety of powers over the House and is ceremonially the highest-ranking legislative official in the U.S. government. The speaker may delegate their powers to a member of the House to act as speaker pro tempore and to preside over the House in the speaker's absence; when this has occurred the delegation has always been to a member of the same party. During important debates, the speaker pro tempore is ordinarily a senior member of the majority party who may be chosen for his or her skill in presiding. At other times, more junior members may be assigned to preside to give them experience with the rules and procedures of the House. The speaker may also designate, with approval of the House, a speaker pro tempore for special purposes, such as designating a representative whose district is near Washington, D.C. to sign enrolled bills during long recesses.

Under the rules of the House, the speaker, "as soon as practicable after the election of the speaker and whenever appropriate thereafter", must deliver to the clerk of the House a list of members who are designated to act as speaker in the case of a vacancy or physical inability of the speaker to perform their duties.

On the floor of the House, the presiding officer is always addressed as "Mister Speaker" or "Madam Speaker", even if that person is serving as speaker pro tempore. When the House resolves itself into a Committee of the Whole, the speaker designates a member to preside over the committee, who is addressed as "Mister Chairman" or "Madam Chairwoman". To speak, members must seek the presiding officer's recognition. The presiding officer also rules on all points of order but such rulings may be appealed to the whole House. The speaker is responsible for maintaining decorum in the House and may order the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce House rules.

The speaker is in charge of deciding which committee a bill will be assigned to, of determining whether to allow a member to make a motion to suspend the rules and of appointing members to select committees and conference committes.

As a member of the House, the speaker is entitled to participate in debate and to vote. Ordinarily, the speaker votes only when the speaker's vote would be decisive or on matters of great importance, such as constitutional amendments or major legislation. Under the early rules of the House, the speaker was generally barred from voting, but today the speaker has the same right as other members to vote but only occasionally exercises it. The speaker may vote on any matter that comes before the House, and they are required to vote where their vote would be decisive or where the House is engaged in voting by ballot.

Other functions
In addition to being the political and parliamentary leader of the House of Representatives and representing their congressional district, the speaker also performs various other administrative and procedural functions, such as:
 * Oversees the officers of the House: the clerk, the sergeant-at-arms, the chief administrative officer, and the chaplain;
 * Serves as the chairperson of the House Office Building Commission;
 * Appoints the House's parliamentarian, historian, general counsel, and inspector general;
 * Administers the House audio and video broadcasting system;
 * In consultation with the minority leader, can devise a system of drug testing in the House. This option has never been exercised;
 * Receives reports or other communications from the president, government agencies, boards, and commissions; and
 * Receives, along with the president pro tempore of the Senate, written declarations that a U.S. president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, or is able to resume them, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

Additionally, the speaker is second in the presidential line of succession under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, immediately after the vice president and before the president pro tempore of the Senate (who is followed by members of the president's Cabinet). Thus, if both the presidency and vice-presidency were vacant simultaneously, then the speaker would become acting president, after resigning from the House and as speaker.

Ratification of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967, with its mechanism for filling an intra-term vice-presidential vacancy, has made calling on the speaker, president pro tempore, or a cabinet member to serve as acting president unlikely to happen, except in the aftermath of a catastrophic event. However, only a few years after it went into effect, in 1973, at the height of Watergate, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned. With Agnew's unexpected departure and the state of Richard Nixon's presidency, Speaker Carl Albert was suddenly first in line to become acting president. The vacancy continued until Gerald Ford was sworn in as vice president. Albert was also next in line from the time Ford assumed the presidency following Nixon's resignation from office in 1974, until Ford's choice to succeed him as vice president, Nelson Rockefeller, was confirmed by Congress.


text:
Abraham Robinson

Abraham Robinson (born Robinsohn; October 6, 1918 – April 11, 1974) was a mathematician who is most widely known for development of nonstandard analysis, a mathematically rigorous system whereby infinitesimal and infinite numbers were reincorporated into modern mathematics. Nearly half of Robinson's papers were in applied mathematics rather than in pure mathematics.

Biography
He was born to a Jewish family with strong Zionist beliefs, in Waldenburg, Germany, which is now Wałbrzych, in Poland. In 1933, he emigrated to British Mandate of Palestine, where he earned a first degree from the Hebrew University. Robinson was in France when the Nazis invaded during World War II, and escaped by train and on foot, being alternately questioned by French soldiers suspicious of his German passport and asked by them to share his map, which was more detailed than theirs. While in London, he joined the Free French Air Force and contributed to the war effort by teaching himself aerodynamics and becoming an expert on the airfoils used in the wings of fighter planes.

After the war, Robinson worked in London, Toronto, and Jerusalem, but ended up at the University of California, Los Angeles in 1962.

Work in model theory
He became known for his approach of using the methods of mathematical logic to attack problems in analysis and abstract algebra. He "introduced many of the fundamental notions of model theory". Using these methods, he found a way of using formal logic to show that there are self-consistent nonstandard models of the real number system that include infinite and infinitesimal numbers. Others, such as Wilhelmus Luxemburg, showed that the same results could be achieved using ultrafilters, which made Robinson's work more accessible to mathematicians who lacked training in formal logic. Robinson's book Non-standard Analysis was published in 1966. Robinson was strongly interested in the history and philosophy of mathematics, and often remarked that he wanted to get inside the head of Leibniz, the first mathematician to attempt to articulate clearly the concept of infinitesimal numbers.

While at UCLA his colleagues remember him as working hard to accommodate PhD students of all levels of ability by finding them projects of the appropriate difficulty. He was courted by Yale, and after some initial reluctance, he moved there in 1967. In the Spring of 1973 he was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study. He died of pancreatic cancer in 1974.

title: Abraham Robinson