tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post108107655452701786..comments2021-01-19T08:41:01.150-05:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: The 2-envelopes paradoxRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1132097580619444692005-11-15T18:33:00.000-05:002005-11-15T18:33:00.000-05:00this problem ONLY becomes philosophical ONCE you d...this problem ONLY becomes philosophical ONCE you do not know algebra. The correct maths are: half of x plus double of y over two is equal to 1:<BR/>(1/2*2 + 2*1/2)/2=1<BR/>so there is equal possibility for any case.<BR/><BR/>the possibility of 1.25 only exists for the place, before recieving the envelopes there is a 125% possibility to increase his zero money by 75%.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1126593765922583822005-09-13T02:42:00.000-04:002005-09-13T02:42:00.000-04:00Yeah, tricky. I guess if we fix the value of y (e....Yeah, tricky. I guess if we fix the value of y (e.g. by looking inside the envelope), then we simply have to deny that there is a 50% chance that z = y/2 and a 50% chance that z = 2y.<BR/><BR/>Though defending this denial will require further explanation than I've offered here. Oh well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1126577641665079082005-09-12T22:14:00.000-04:002005-09-12T22:14:00.000-04:00If you look in the first envelope you pick and see...If you look in the first envelope you pick and see what's in there, that amount can't be a variable anymore. The paradoxical argument can still be performed, but your solution breaks down. Sorry about that. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1126577552746952952005-09-12T22:12:00.000-04:002005-09-12T22:12:00.000-04:00If you look in the first envelope you pick and see...If you look in the first envelope you pick and see what's in there, that amount can't be a variable anymore. The paradoxical argument can still be performed, but your solution breaks down. Sorry about that. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com