The Two-Envelope Paradox: A Complete Analysis?
نویسنده
چکیده
March 22, 1994 A wealthy eccentric places two envelopes in front of you. She tells you that both envelopes contain money, and that one contains twice as much as the other, but she does not tell you which is which. You are allowed to choose one envelope, and to keep all the money you find inside. This may seem innocuous, but it generates an apparent paradox. Say that you choose envelope 1, and it contains $100. In evaluating your decision, you reason that there is a 50% chance that envelope 2 contains $200, and a 50% chance that it contains $50. In retrospect, you reason, you should have taken envelope 2, as its expected value is $125. If your sponsor offered you the chance to change your decision now, it seems that you should do so. Now, this reasoning is independent of the actual amount in envelope 1, and in fact can be carried out in advance of opening the envelope; it follows that whatever envelope 1 contains, it would be better to choose envelope 2. But the situation with respect to the two envelopes is symmetrical, so the same reasoning tells you that whatever envelope 2 contains, you would do better to choose envelope 1. This seems contradictory. What has gone wrong? The paradox can be expressed numerically. Let A and B be the amounts in envelope 1 and 2 respectively; their expected values are E(A) and E(B). For all n, it seems that p(B > AjA = n) = 0:5, so that E(BjA = n) = 1:25n. It follows that E(B) = 1:25E(A), and therefore that E(B) > E(A) if either expected value is greater than zero. The same reasoning shows that E(A) > E(B), but the conjunction is impossible, and in any case E(A) = E(B) by
منابع مشابه
Bertrand’s Paradox Revisited: More Lessons about that Ambiguous Word, Random
The Bertrand paradox question is: “Consider a unit-radius circle for which the length of a side of an inscribed equilateral triangle equals 3 . Determine the probability that the length of a ‘random’ chord of a unit-radius circle has length greater than 3 .” Bertrand derived three different ‘correct’ answers, the correctness depending on interpretation of the word, random. Here we employ geomet...
متن کاملThe Two-Envelope Paradox: An Axiomatic Approach
There has been much recent discussion on the two-envelope paradox. Clark and Shackel (2000) have proposed a solution to the paradox, which has been refuted by Meacham and Weisberg (2003). Surprisingly, however, the literature still contains no axiomatic justification for the claim that one should be indifferent between the two envelopes before opening one of them. According to Meacham and Weisb...
متن کاملA Hysteretic Two-phase Supply Modulator for Envelope Tracking RF Power Amplifiers
In this paper a two-phase supply modulator suitable for envelope tracking power amplifier is presented. The designed supply modulator has the linear assisted switching architecture. Two-phase architecture is used in order to reduce the output switching ripples. The proposed architecture uses hysteretic control instead of pulse width modulation (PWM) which significantly reduces the circuit compl...
متن کاملبررسی عملکرد پوششهای گراولی و مصنوعی در زهکشهای زیرزمینی
In this research, the hydraulic behavior of two kinds of envelopes including synthetic envelope, PP450 and gravel envelope with USBR standard in two soil tank models with silty loam texture was investigated. Three water heads including 55, 75 and 105 cm (water logging) from drain level were used. The discharge of pipe drain in the steady state condition for gravel envelope and at 55, 75 and 105...
متن کاملThe Role of Information in the Two Envelope Problem
We offer a new view on the two envelope problem (also called the exchange paradox). We describe it as a zero-sum game of two players, having only partial information. We first explain a standard situation and show that the mean gain—when defined—is really zero. However, there are even more paradoxical situations in which the information obtained by the players supports the exchange of envelopes...
متن کامل