Berry paradox
The Berry paradox is a selfreferential paradox arising from an expression like "The smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters" (note that this defining phrase has fiftyseven letters). Bertrand Russell, the first to discuss the paradox in print, attributed it to G. G. Berry (1867–1928),^{[1]} a junior librarian at Oxford's Bodleian library.
Contents
Overview
Consider the expression:
Since there are only twentysix letters in the English alphabet, there are finitely many phrases of under sixty letters, and hence finitely many positive integers that are defined by phrases of under sixty letters. Since there are infinitely many positive integers, this means that there are positive integers that cannot be defined by phrases of under sixty letters. If there are positive integers that satisfy a given property, then there is a smallest positive integer that satisfies that property; therefore, there is a smallest positive integer satisfying the property "not definable in under sixty letters". This is the integer to which the above expression refers. The above expression is only fiftyseven letters long, therefore it is definable in under sixty letters, and is not the smallest positive integer not definable in under sixty letters, and is not defined by this expression. This is a paradox: there must be an integer defined by this expression, but since the expression is selfcontradictory (any integer it defines is definable in under sixty letters), there cannot be any integer defined by it.
Perhaps another helpful analogy to Berry's Paradox would be the phrase, "indescribable feeling".^{[2]} If the feeling is indeed indescribable, then no description of the feeling would be true. But if the word "indescribable" communicates something about the feeling, then it may be considered a description: this is selfcontradictory.
Resolution
This section may be confusing or unclear to readers. (December 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The Berry paradox as formulated above arises because of systematic ambiguity in the word "definable". In other formulations of the Berry paradox, such as one that instead reads: "...not nameable in less..." the term "nameable" is also one that has this systematic ambiguity. Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies. Other terms with this type of ambiguity are: satisfiable, true, false, function, property, class, relation, cardinal, and ordinal.^{[3]} To resolve one of these paradoxes means to pinpoint exactly where our use of language went wrong and to provide restrictions on the use of language which may avoid them.
This family of paradoxes can be resolved by incorporating stratifications of meaning in language. Terms with systematic ambiguity may be written with subscripts denoting that one level of meaning is considered a higher priority than another in their interpretation. "The number not nameable_{0} in less than eleven words" may be nameable_{1} in less than eleven words under this scheme.^{[4]}
Formal analogues
Using programs or proofs of bounded lengths, it is possible to construct an analogue of the Berry expression in a formal mathematical language, as has been done by Gregory Chaitin. Though the formal analogue does not lead to a logical contradiction, it does prove certain impossibility results.
George Boolos (1989) built on a formalized version of Berry's paradox to prove Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in a new and much simpler way. The basic idea of his proof is that a proposition that holds of x if and only if x = n for some natural number n can be called a definition for n, and that the set {(n, k): n has a definition that is k symbols long} can be shown to be representable (using Gödel numbers). Then the proposition "m is the first number not definable in less than k symbols" can be formalized and shown to be a definition in the sense just stated.
Relationship with Kolmogorov complexity
It is not possible in general to unambiguously define what is the minimal number of symbols required to describe a given string (given a specific description mechanism). In this context, the terms string and number may be used interchangeably, since a number is actually a string of symbols, e.g. an English word (like the word "eleven" used in the paradox) while, on the other hand, it is possible to refer to any word with a number, e.g. by the number of its position in a given dictionary or by suitable encoding. Some long strings can be described exactly using fewer symbols than those required by their full representation, as is often achieved using data compression. The complexity of a given string is then defined as the minimal length that a description requires in order to (unambiguously) refer to the full representation of that string.
The Kolmogorov complexity is defined using formal languages, or Turing machines which avoids ambiguities about which string results from a given description. It can be proven that the Kolmogorov complexity is not computable. The proof by contradiction shows that if it were possible to compute the Kolmogorov complexity, then it would also be possible to systematically generate paradoxes similar to this one, i.e. descriptions shorter than what the complexity of the described string implies. That is to say, the definition of the Berry number is paradoxical because it is not actually possible to compute how many words are required to define a number, and we know that such computation is not possible because of the paradox.
See also
 Busy beaver
 Chaitin's incompleteness theorem
 Definable number
 Hilbert–Bernays paradox
 Interesting number paradox
 List of paradoxes
 Richard's paradox
Notes
 ^ Nicholas Griffin (20030623). The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell. Cambridge University Press. p. 63. ISBN 9780521636346.
 ^ Menken, Alan; Ashman, Howard; Rice, Tim (1 Dec 1992). Aladdin (Piano/Vocal/Guitar Songbook). Hal Leonard. ISBN 0793517826. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
 ^ Russell and Whitehead (1927).
 ^ Quine, Willard (1976). Ways of Paradox. Harvard University Press.
References
 Bennett, Charles H. (1979). "On Random and HardtoDescribe Numbers". IBM Report RC7483. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.27.3492 ..
 Boolos, George (1989) "A new proof of the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem", Notices of the American Mathematical Society 36: 388–90; 676. Reprinted in his (1998) Logic, Logic, and Logic. Harvard Univ. Press: 38388.
 Chaitin, Gregory (1993), Transcript of lecture given 27 October 1993 at the University of New Mexico
 Chaitin, Gregory (1995) "The Berry Paradox." Complexity 1: 2630.
 French, James D. (1988) "The False Assumption Underlying Berry's Paradox," Journal of Symbolic Logic 53: 1220–1223.
 Russell, Bertrand (1906) "Les paradoxes de la logique", Revue de métaphysique et de morale 14: 627–650
 Russell, Bertrand; Whitehead, Alfred N. (1927) Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press. 1962 partial paperback reissue goes up to *56.
External links
 RoosenRunge, Peter H. (1997) "Berry's Paradox."
 Weisstein, Eric W. "Berry Paradox". MathWorld.