Skip Navigation

Mind 2000 109(435):415-442; doi:10.1093/mind/109.435.415
© 2000 by Mind Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, M
Right arrow Articles by Shackel, N
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The two-envelope paradox

M Clark and N ShackelA

Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK E-mail: michael.clark@nottingham.ac.uk A Department of Mathematics, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK E-mail: nshackel@dmu.ac.uk

Previous claims to have resolved the two-envelope paradox have been premature. The paradoxical argument has been exposed as manifestly fallacious if there is an upper limit to the amount of money that may be put in an envelope; but the paradoxical cases which can be described if this limitation is removed do not involve mathematical error, nor can they be explained away in terms of the strangeness of infinity. Only by taking account of the partial sums of the infinite series of expected gains can the paradox be resolved.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Proc R Soc AHome page
M. D. McDonnell and D. Abbott
Randomized switching in the two-envelope problem
Proc R Soc A, November 8, 2009; 465(2111): 3309 - 3322.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Philosophical ReviewHome page
A. Hajek
Waging War on Pascal's Wager
Philosophical Review, January 1, 2003; 112(1): 27 - 56.
[PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.