David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia Mathematica 21 (1):110-114 (2013)
This paper shows that Bertrand's proposed 'solutions' to his own question, which generates his chord paradox, are inapplicable. It uses a simple analogy with cake cutting. The problem is that none of Bertrand's solutions considers all possible cuts. This is no solace for the defenders of the principle of indifference, however, because it emerges that the paradox is harder to solve than previously anticipated.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
D. Klyve (2013). In Defense of Bertrand: The Non-Restrictiveness of Reasoning by Example. Philosophia Mathematica 21 (3):365-370.
Similar books and articles
Louis Marinoff (1994). A Resolution of Bertrand's Paradox. Philosophy of Science 61 (1):1-24.
Nicholas Shackel (2007). Bertrand's Paradox and the Principle of Indifference. Philosophy of Science 74 (2):150-175.
Darrell P. Rowbottom & Nicholas Shackel (2010). Bangu's Random Thoughts on Bertrand's Paradox. Analysis 70 (4):689-692.
Sorin Bangu (2010). On Bertrand's Paradox. Analysis 70 (1):30-35.
Igor Douven & Timothy Williamson (2006). Generalizing the Lottery Paradox. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (4):755-779.
Nathan Stemmer (2004). The Goodman Paradox: Three Different Problems and a Naturalistic Solution to Two of Them. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 35 (2):351 - 370.
Added to index2012-11-08
Total downloads65 ( #52,481 of 1,727,166 )
Recent downloads (6 months)23 ( #38,308 of 1,727,166 )
How can I increase my downloads?