Graduate studies at Western
Mind 109 (435):415--442 (2000)
|Abstract||Previous claims to have resolved the two-envelope paradox have been premature. The paradoxical argument has been exposed as manifestly fallacious if there is an upper limit to the amount of money that may be put in an envelope; but the paradoxical cases which can be described if this limitation is removed do not involve mathematical error, nor can they be explained away in terms of the strangeness of infinity. Only by taking account of the partial sums of the infinite series of expected gains can the paradox be resolved.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Casper J. Albers, Barteld P. Kooi & Willem Schaafsma (2005). Trying to Resolve the Two-Envelope Problem. Synthese 145 (1):89 - 109.
W. Schaafsma, B. P. Kooi & C. Albers (2005). Trying to Resolve the Two-Envelope Problem. Synthese 145 (1):89 - 109.
Gary Malinas (2006). Two Envelope Problems. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:153-158.
Olav Gjelsvik (2002). Paradox Lost, but in Which Envelope? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):353-362.
Christopher J. G. Meacham & Jonathan Weisberg (2003). Clark and Shackel on the Two-Envelope Paradox. Mind 112 (448):685-689.
Gary Malinas (2003). Two Envelope Problems and the Roles of Ignorance. Acta Analytica 18 (1-2):217-225.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads52 ( #23,838 of 739,100 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #12,331 of 739,100 )
How can I increase my downloads?