> some argue there are formal analogues which are genuine paradoxes... Isn't this getting a bit circular, as it seems to be using the presumed existence of a f

> some argue there are formal analogues which are genuine paradoxes... Isn't this getting a bit circular, as it seems to be using the presumed existence of a formal analogue to justify the informal Berry's paradox? If it has a paradoxical formal analogue, then it does not stand as an example of a useful yet unavoidably informal paradox. Also, given that there seem to be more than one plausible formal analogue, not all of which are paradoxes, does the dispute not just re-form around which is the real formal analogue? That's what seems to be happening in the exchange of papers from which your example was taken.