Fermi paradox
Michael H. Hart published in 1975 a detailed examination of the paradox, which has since become a theoretical reference point for much of the research into what is now sometimes known as the Fermi–Hart paradox. Geoffrey A. Landis prefers that name on the grounds that "while Fermi is credited with first asking the question, Hart was the first to do a rigorous analysis showing that the problem is not trivial, and also the first to publish his results". Robert H. Gray argues that the term "Fermi paradox" is a misnomer, since in his view it is neither a paradox nor due to Fermi; he instead prefers the name Hart–Tipler argument, acknowledging Michael Hart as its originator, but also the substantial contribution of Frank J. Tipler in extending Hart's arguments.
Naive set theory
Some believe that Georg Cantor's set theory was not actually implicated in the set-theoretic paradoxes (see Frápolli 1991). One difficulty in determining this with certainty is that Cantor did not provide an axiomatization of his system. By 1899, Cantor was aware of some of the paradoxes following from unrestricted interpretation of his theory, for instance Cantor's paradox and the Burali-Forti paradox, and did not believe that they discredited his theory. Cantor's paradox can actually be derived from the above (false) assumption using for is a cardinal number". Frege explicitly axiomatized a theory in which a formalized version of naïve set theory can be interpreted, and it is "this" formal theory which Bertrand Russell actually addressed when he presented his paradox, not necessarily a theory Cantor, who, as mentioned, was aware of several paradoxes, presumably had in mind.