3 ms·
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
by thrwwy77911234 11y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
- throwaway000002 11y agoThanks oh so very much! :)
- PeterWhittaker 11y agoAnd read this, too: http://www.ams.org/notices/201011/rtx101101454p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201011/rtx101101454p.pdf
- throwaway000002 11y agoWow Peter, thanks for that. I like their analysis. It reminded me of a great article I read years ago that dealt with the issue of self-referential paradox. In fact, at the time I tried applying the techniques therein towards the surprise examination, however I didn't get anywhere. It's a paper by Noson Yanofsky entitled "A Universal Approach to Self-Referential Paradoxes, Incompleteness and Fixed Points" (http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0305282 http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0305282) I think you'll enjoy reading it. I read the paper on a long train ride loved working out how given "Ann believes that Bob believes that Ann believes that Bob has a false belief about Ann" asking "does Ann believe that Bob has a false belief about Ann?" results in a paradox. This is supposedly called Brandenburger’s Epistemic Paradox. Anyway, thanks again for your reference.
- PeterWhittaker 11y agoThanks, downloaded. I have to read the paper I quoted a few more times before I grok it fully. Perhaps it will be clearer after reading the one you cite, which appears most intriguing. Thanks again! EDIT: Just started reading. Mind already blown by the clarity of the "limitation, not paradox" idea. Slowing down for a longer, deeper, read.