arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1402.3311

Why do we change whatever amount we found in the first envelope: the Wikipedia "two envelopes problem" commented

Léo Gerville-Réache
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We analyze the main arguments that attempt to explain why there is no point in changing the envelope. Most people confuse estimation and calculation, conditional and unconditional probabilities, random and non-random variables, modelling and reality, chance and uncertainty (or credence), whatever X known and whatever X unknown, personal and interpersonal estimates. Such confusions suggest that there would be no point in swapping the envelope. Our analysis is that if the first envelope is opened, whatever the amount, it is rational and consistent to think that it is worth changing it. If the first envelope is not opened, it is rational and consistent to believe there is no point in swapping the envelope.

Explore related subjects

math.HOmath.PR

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Léo Gerville-Réache. 2014-02-12. Why do we change whatever amount we found in the first envelope: the Wikipedia "two envelopes problem" commented. https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3311

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Perspectives on the unit distance problem

This is a survey on an old open problem in combinatorics called the unit distance problem, and the field of mathematics around it, called incidence geometry. What do we know about the problem? Why is it difficult? How does it connect with other parts of math?

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

A Categorical Approach to Euclidean Ratios and Proportions

A categorial approach to the non-metric geometry in Books V and VI of Euclid's \textit{Elements} is presented. Specifically, we introduce a diagrammatic syntax that can be overlaid immediately on his diagrams, thus bridging intuitive presentation with fidelity to Euclid's arguments. This syntax makes complicated definitions like V.5, and indeed the arguments throughout books V and VI, including arguments about similar figures, intuitively clear. We show in an appendix that this syntax can be used to solve a puzzle regarding ancient mathematics. Finally, we offer evidence that this approach to Euclidean diagrams is rooted in the Aristotelian tradition itself, and that a similar syntax was utilized, in antiquity, for related questions of numeric and proportions. Thus the syntax is plausibly faithful to Euclid's own thought-world, and not an outside-imposition.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Some Early Results by Tutte Regarding the Cycle Double Cover Conjecture in 1948

OpenAI recently announced a proof of the Cycle Double Cover (CDC) Conjecture. Most media reports have characterized it as a 50-year-old open problem. In reality, according to a 1987 letter from Tutte to Fleischner, the Cycle Double Cover Problem has been open for at least 80 years. Two early results regarding the CDC conjecture were established in one of Tutte's 1949 publications.

math.HO↗