Resolution of the Surprise Exam Paradox

Tahl Nowik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.0955

2014-12-03

Abstract:We present a resolution of the celebrated "Surprise Exam Paradox". We argue that if the surprise exam story is analyzed using the exact same meaning of the notion of "surprise" as is dictated by the story itself, then no paradox arises.

History and Overview

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Resolving Bertrand's Probability Paradox

Jinchang Wang,R L Jackson

2011-01-01

Abstract:In this article we resolve Bertrand’s probability paradox and show why it has perplexed researchers for 120 years. This paradox appears to have three equally plausible, yet incompatible, solutions. We begin by showing two facts, the random chords referred to in Bertrand’s paradox are homogeneously distributed and there is no disagreement among people on this point. Based on these facts, we rigorously prove that two of the three alleged answers are not sound because of their false assumptions and that only one solution is correct. The paradox is therefore no longer paradoxical. We also reveal two significant stumbling blocks that have persistently caused puzzles with regard to this paradox: 1) misunderstanding of the nature of homogeneously distributed chords, and 2) a disparity between the problem as originally conceived in the mind and its subsequent representation. We conclude by presenting our reflections on the subtleties of the paradox and on some prevalent misconceptions that have historically plagued attempts to resolve it.
A Resolution of St. Petersburg Paradox

V.I. Yukalov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.14635

2021-11-24

Abstract:The St. Petersburg paradox is the oldest paradox in decision theory and has played a pivotal role in the introduction of increasing concave utility functions embodying risk aversion and decreasing marginal utility of gains. All attempts to resolve it have considered some variants of the original set-up, but the original paradox has remained unresolved, while the proposed variants have introduced new complications and problems. Here a rigorous mathematical resolution of the St. Petersburg paradox is suggested based on a probabilistic approach to decision theory.

Optimization and Control,Theoretical Economics,Physics and Society
Time-Symmetric Resolutions of the Renninger Negative-Result Paradoxes

Michael B. Heaney

2023-09-08

Abstract:The 1953 and 1960 Renninger negative-result thought experiments illustrate conceptual paradoxes in the Copenhagen formulation of quantum mechanics. In the 1953 paradox we can infer the presence of a detector in one arm of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer without any particle interacting with the detector. In the 1960 paradox we can infer the collapse of a wavefunction without any change in the state of a detector. I resolve both of these paradoxes by using a time-symmetric formulation of quantum mechanics. I also describe a real experiment that can distinguish between the Copenhagen and time-symmetric formulations.

Quantum Physics
Anna Karenina and the two envelopes problem

R. D. Gill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/anzs.12329

2021-03-01

Abstract:The Anna Karenina principle is named after the opening sentence in the eponymous novel: Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. The two envelopes problem (TEP) is a much-studied paradox in probability theory, mathematical economics, logic and philosophy. Time and again a new analysis is published in which an author claims finally to explain what actually goes wrong in this paradox. Each author (the present author included) emphasises what is new in their approach and concludes that earlier approaches did not get to the root of the matter. We observe that though a logical argument is only correct if every step is correct, an apparently logical argument which goes astray can be thought of as going astray at different places. This leads to a comparison between the literature on TEP and a successful movie franchise: it generates a succession of sequels, and even prequels, each with a different director who approaches the same basic premise in a personal way. We survey resolutions in the literature with a view to synthesis, correct common errors, and give a new theorem on order properties of an exchangeable pair of random variables, at the heart of most TEP variants and interpretations. A theorem on asymptotic independence between the amount in your envelope and the question whether it is smaller or larger shows that the pathological situation of improper priors or infinite expectation values has consequences as we merely approach such a situation.

statistics & probability
The Two Envelope Problem: a Paradox or Fallacious Reasoning?

Aris Spanos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.0118

2013-01-02

Abstract:The primary objective of this note is to revisit the two envelope problem and propose a simple resolution. It is argued that the paradox arises from the ambiguity associated with the money content $x of the chosen envelope. When X=x is observed it is not know which one of the two events, X={\theta} or X=2{\theta}, has occurred. Moreover, the money in the other envelope Y is not independent of X; when one contains {\theta} the other contains 2{\theta}. By taking these important features of the problem into account, the paradox disappears.

Methodology
Resolving the two envelope paradox

Nemo Semret

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2101.03484

2021-01-29

Abstract:Consider the following game: You are given two indistinguishable envelopes, each containing money. One contains twice as much as the other. You may pick one envelope and keep the money it contains. Having chosen an envelope, you are given the chance to switch envelopes. Should you switch? The intuitive answer is that it makes no difference, since you are equally likely to have picked the envelope with the higher or the lower amount. However, a naive expected value calculation implies you gain by switching, since you have $ 50\% $ chance of doubling and $ 50\% $ chance of halving your current winnings, and so if the first chosen envelope contains X, then switching gives an expected final value of $ (X/2 + 2X)/2 > X $. That seems like a paradox. We prove that the former is the correct answer, and show how the apparent "paradox" can be resolved.

Probability,History and Overview
A Closer Look at the Russell Paradox

Flash Sheridan

2024-05-28

Abstract:Two types of approximation to the paradoxical Russell Set are presented, one approximating it from below, one from above. It is shown that any lower approximation gives rise to a better approximation containing it, and that any upper approximation contains a distinct better approximation. The Russell Paradox is then seen to be the claim that two of these processes of better approximations stop, and at the same set. This suggests that the unrestricted Axiom of Comprehension is, not a coherent intuition worthy of rescue from a mysterious paradox, but simply wishful thinking, a confusion of sets as extensional objects with classes defined by a property.

Logic
A Paradox and its Resolution Illustrate Principles of de Sitter Holography

Leonard Susskind

2023-04-03

Abstract:Semiclassical gravity and the holographic description of the static patch of de Sitter space appear to disagree about properties of correlation functions. Certain holographic correlation functions are necessarily real whereas their semiclassical counterparts have both real and imaginary parts. The resolution of this apparent contradiction involves the fact that time-reversal is a gauge symmetry in de Sitter space -- a point made by Harlow and Ooguri -- and the need for an observer (or quantum reference frame) as advocated by Chandrasekaran, Longo, Penington, and Witten.

High Energy Physics - Theory
The two envelopes paradox in non-Bayesian and Bayesian statistics

Shiro Ishikawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1408.4916

2014-09-15

Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to clarify the (non-Bayesian and Bayesian) two-envelope problems in terms of quantum language (or, measurement theory), which was recently proposed as a linguistic turn of quantum mechanics (with the Copenhagen interpretation). The two envelopes paradox is only a kind of high school student's probability puzzle, and it may be exaggerated to say that this is an unsolved problem. However, since we are convinced that quantum language is just statistics of the future, we believe that there is no clear answer without the description by quantum language. In this sense, the readers are to find that quantum language provides the final answer (i.e., the easiest and deepest understanding) to the two envelope-problems in both non-Bayesian and Bayesian statistics. Also, we add the discussion about St. Petersburg two-envelope paradox.

Other Statistics,Quantum Physics
A taxonomy of surprise definitions

Alireza Modirshanechi,Johanni Brea,Wulfram Gerstner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2022.102712

2022-09-02

Abstract:Surprising events trigger measurable brain activity and influence human behavior by affecting learning, memory, and decision-making. Currently there is, however, no consensus on the definition of surprise. Here we identify 18 mathematical definitions of surprise in a unifying framework. We first propose a technical classification of these definitions into three groups based on their dependence on an agent's belief, show how they relate to each other, and prove under what conditions they are indistinguishable. Going beyond this technical analysis, we propose a taxonomy of surprise definitions and classify them into four conceptual categories based on the quantity they measure: (i) 'prediction surprise' measures a mismatch between a prediction and an observation; (ii) 'change-point detection surprise' measures the probability of a change in the environment; (iii) 'confidence-corrected surprise' explicitly accounts for the effect of confidence; and (iv) 'information gain surprise' measures the belief-update upon a new observation. The taxonomy poses the foundation for principled studies of the functional roles and physiological signatures of surprise in the brain.

Neurons and Cognition,Machine Learning
Resolving Rabin’s paradox

Han Bleichrodt,Jason N. Doctor,Yu Gao,Chen Li,Daniella Meeker,Peter P. Wakker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-019-09318-0

2019-01-01

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

Abstract:We present a theoretical model of Rabin’s famous calibration paradox that resolves confusions in the literature and that makes it possible to identify the causes of the paradox. Using suitable experimental stimuli, we show that the paradox truly violates expected utility and that it is caused by reference dependence. Rabin already showed that utility curvature alone cannot explain his paradox. We, more strongly, do not find any contribution of utility curvature to the explanation of the paradox. We find no contribution of probability weighting either. We conclude that Rabin’s paradox underscores the importance of reference dependence.
Barn and Pole paradox: revisited

Robert Cacioppo,Asim Gangopadhyaya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/47/5/563

2012-03-23

Abstract:We present two different paradoxes related to the length contraction in special relativity and explain their resolution.

Classical Physics,Physics Education
We Still Can Not Study Ornithology inside the House--An query on Hempel's dissolution

Dun Xinguo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-905X.2005.03.028

2005-01-01

Abstract:The confirmation paradoxes that Hempel discovered shows that a red shoe confirms the hypotheis that all ravens are black, which implies we can do the ornithological study inside the door. It is very counterintuitive, so Hempel proposed the dissolution to them. This dissolutive tragedy is to keep the Equivalence Condition and discard the Irrelevant Condition of the Nicod Condition. To keep the Equivalence Condition is very ad hoc, so it isn't convincing. However, to keep the Irrelevant Condition doesn't cause any paradoxes necessarily; to discard it can not escape paradoxes yet. So Hempel's dissolution can not be certified as a good one.
On a paradox in quantum mechanics and its resolution

Padtarapan Banyadsin,Salvatore De Vincenzo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/acda69

2023-07-06

Abstract:Consider a free Schrödinger particle inside an interval with walls characterized by the Dirichlet boundary condition. Choose a parabola as the normalized state of the particle that satisfies this boundary condition. To calculate the variance of the Hamiltonian in that state, one needs to calculate the mean value of the Hamiltonian and that of its square. If one uses the standard formula to calculate these mean values, one obtains both results without difficulty, but the variance unexpectedly takes an imaginary value. If one uses the same expression to calculate these mean values but first writes the Hamiltonian and its square in terms of their respective eigenfunctions and eigenvalues, one obtains the same result as above for the mean value of the Hamiltonian but a different value for its square (in fact, it is not zero); hence, the variance takes an acceptable value. From whence do these contradictory results arise? The latter paradox has been presented in the literature as an example of a problem that can only be properly solved by making use of certain fundamental concepts within the general theory of linear operators in Hilbert spaces. Here, we carefully review those concepts and apply them in a detailed way to resolve the paradox. Our results are formulated within the natural framework of wave mechanics, and to avoid inconveniences that the use of Dirac's symbolic formalism could bring, we avoid the use of that formalism throughout the article. In addition, we obtain a resolution of the paradox in an entirely formal way without addressing the restrictions imposed by the domains of the operators involved. We think that the content of this paper will be useful to undergraduate and graduate students as well as to their instructors.

Quantum Physics
A Constructive Epistemic Logic with Public Announcement (Non-Predetermined Possibilities)

Rasoul Ramezanian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1302.0975

2013-02-05

Logic in Computer Science

Abstract:We argue that the notion of epistemic \emph{possible worlds} in constructivism (intuitionism) is not as the same as it is in classic view, and there are possibilities, called non-predetermined worlds, which are ignored in (classic) Epistemic Logic. Regarding non-predetermined possibilities, we propose a constructive epistemic logic and prove soundness and completeness theorems for it. We extend the proposed logic by adding a public announcement operator. To declare the significance of our work, we formulate the well-known Surprise Exam Paradox, $\mathbf{SEP}$, via the proposed constructive epistemic logic and then put forward a solution for the paradox. We clarify that the puzzle in the $\mathbf{SEP}$ is because of students'(wrong) assumption that the day of the exam is necessarily predetermined.
Reasoning about unpredicted change and explicit time

Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr,Jérôme Lang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0035625

2024-07-09

Abstract:Reasoning about unpredicted change consists in explaining observations by events; we propose here an approach for explaining time-stamped observations by surprises, which are simple events consisting in the change of the truth value of a fluent. A framework for dealing with surprises is defined. Minimal sets of surprises are provided together with time intervals where each surprise has occurred, and they are characterized from a model-based diagnosis point of view. Then, a probabilistic approach of surprise minimisation is proposed.

Artificial Intelligence
Solving Paradox by Reducing Expectation

Xin Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0005

IF: 16.4

2021-04-01

Academy of Management Review

Abstract:Original paper: Marco Berti and Ace Simpson, The Dark Side of Organizational Paradoxes: The Dynamics of Disempowerment, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0208 This paper critiques Berti and Simpson's argument that since pragmatic paradoxes are created by power differentials the solution to such paradoxes has to be to redress these power asymmetries. We discuss why their prescription is often impractical and argue that, even in the face of paradoxes created by huge power asymmetries, there is always a solution to paradox to be found in reducing one's expectations. We use the example of how Google dealt with Chinese government's demand for Internet censorship to illustrate our argument.

management,business
Perception Lie Paradox: Mathematically Proved Uncertainty about Humans Perception Similarity

Ahmed M. Mahran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1202.4174

2012-02-20

Abstract:Agents' judgment depends on perception and previous knowledge. Assuming that previous knowledge depends on perception, we can say that judgment depends on perception. So, if judgment depends on perception, can agents judge that they have the same perception? In few words, this is the addressed paradox through this document. While illustrating on the paradox, it's found that to reach agreement in communication, it's not necessary for parties to have the same perception however the necessity is to have perception correspondence. The attempted solution to this paradox reveals a potential uncertainty in judging the matter thus supporting the skeptical view of the problem. Moreover, relating perception to intelligence, the same uncertainty is inherited by judging the level of intelligence of an agent compared to others not necessarily from the same kind (e.g. machine intelligence compared to human intelligence). Using a proposed simple mathematical model for perception and action, a tool is developed to construct scenarios, and the problem is addressed mathematically such that conclusions are drawn systematically based on mathematically defined properties. When it comes to formalization, philosophical arguments and views become more visible and explicit.

Neurons and Cognition,Artificial Intelligence
Some paradoxes of Infinity revisited

Yaroslav D. Sergeyev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00009-022-02063-w

2022-12-08

Abstract:In this article, some classical paradoxes of infinity such as Galileo's paradox, Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel, Thomson's lamp paradox, and the rectangle paradox of Torricelli are considered. In addition, three paradoxes regarding divergent series and a new paradox dealing with multiplication of elements of an infinite set are also described. It is shown that the surprising counting system of an Amazonian tribe, Pirahã, working with only three numerals (one, two, many) can help us to change our perception of these paradoxes. A recently introduced methodology allowing one to work with finite, infinite, and infinitesimal numbers in a unique computational framework not only theoretically but also numerically is briefly described. This methodology is actively used nowadays in numerous applications in pure and applied mathematics and computer science as well as in teaching. It is shown in the article that this methodology also allows one to consider the paradoxes listed above in a new constructive light.

General Mathematics
The inspection paradox in stochastic resetting

Arnab Pal,Sarah Kostinski,Shlomi Reuveni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ac3cdf

2022-01-14

Abstract:Abstract The remaining travel time of a plane shortens with every minute that passes from its departure, and a flame diminishes a candle with every second it burns. Such everyday occurrences bias us to think that processes which have already begun will end before those which have just started. Yet, the inspection paradox teaches us that the converse can also happen when randomness is at play. The paradox comes from probability theory, where it is often illustrated by measuring how long passengers wait upon arriving at a bus stop at a random time. Interestingly, such passengers may on average wait longer than the mean time between bus arrivals—a counter-intuitive result, since one expects to wait less when coming some time after the previous bus departed. In this viewpoint , we review the inspection paradox and its origins. The insight gained is then used to explain why, and under which conditions, stochastic resetting expedites the completion of random processes. Importantly, this is done with elementary mathematical tools which help develop a probabilistic intuition for stochastic resetting and how it works. This viewpoint can thus be used as an accessible introduction to the subject.

Resolution of the Surprise Exam Paradox

Resolving Bertrand's Probability Paradox

A Resolution of St. Petersburg Paradox

Time-Symmetric Resolutions of the Renninger Negative-Result Paradoxes

Anna Karenina and the two envelopes problem

The Two Envelope Problem: a Paradox or Fallacious Reasoning?

Resolving the two envelope paradox

A Closer Look at the Russell Paradox

A Paradox and its Resolution Illustrate Principles of de Sitter Holography

The two envelopes paradox in non-Bayesian and Bayesian statistics

A taxonomy of surprise definitions

Resolving Rabin’s paradox

Barn and Pole paradox: revisited

We Still Can Not Study Ornithology inside the House--An query on Hempel's dissolution

On a paradox in quantum mechanics and its resolution

A Constructive Epistemic Logic with Public Announcement (Non-Predetermined Possibilities)

Reasoning about unpredicted change and explicit time

Solving Paradox by Reducing Expectation

Perception Lie Paradox: Mathematically Proved Uncertainty about Humans Perception Similarity

Some paradoxes of Infinity revisited

The inspection paradox in stochastic resetting