Equivocation in the surprise exam paradox
Southern Journal of Philosophy 29 (3):291-302 (1991)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesKen Levy (2009). The Solution to the Surprise Exam Paradox. Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (2):131-158.
Margarita Vázquez (2008). Logic and the Surprise Exam Paradox. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 13:121-127.
José Luis Ferreira & Jesús Zamora Bonilla (2008). The Surprise Exam Paradox, Rationality, and Pragmatics: A Simple Game‐Theoretic Analysis. Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (3):285-299.
Elliott Sober (1998). To Give a Surprise Exam, Use Game Theory. Synthese 115 (3):355-373.
Luc Bovens (1997). The Backward Induction Argument for the Finite Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Surprise Exam Paradox. Analysis 57 (3):179–186.
John N. Williams (2007). The Surprise Exam Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Research 32:67-94.
Richard L. Kirkham (1991). On Paradoxes and a Surprise Exam. Philosophia 21 (1-2):31-51.
J. A. Wright (1967). The Surprise Exam: Prediction on Last Day Uncertain. Mind 76 (301):115-117.
Graham Priest (2000). The Logic of Backwards Inductions. Economics and Philosophy 16 (2):267-285.
Leo K. C. Cheung (2013). On Two Versions of 'the Surprise Examination Paradox'. Philosophia 41 (1):159-170.
Earl W. Spurgin (2004). The Goals and Merits of a Business Ethics Competency Exam. Journal of Business Ethics 50 (3):279-288.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-15Total downloads9 ( #113,980 of 549,006 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,006 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
