Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-hd9dq Total loading time: 0.292 Render date: 2022-09-29T12:38:37.073Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

A SOLUTION TO THE SURPRISE EXAM PARADOX IN CONSTRUCTIVE MATHEMATICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2012

MOHAMMAD ARDESHIR*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Sharif University of Technology
RASOUL RAMEZANIAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Sharif University of Technology
*
*DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, SHARIF UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, P.O. BOX 11365-9415, TEHRAN, IRAN E-mail:mardeshir@sharif.edu, ramezanian@sharif.edu
*DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, SHARIF UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, P.O. BOX 11365-9415, TEHRAN, IRAN E-mail:mardeshir@sharif.edu, ramezanian@sharif.edu

Abstract

We represent the well-known surprise exam paradox in constructive and computable mathematics and offer solutions. One solution is based on Brouwer’s continuity principle in constructive mathematics, and the other involves type 2 Turing computability in classical mathematics. We also discuss the backward induction paradox for extensive form games in constructive logic.

Type
Research Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Binkley, R. (1968). The surprise examination in modal logic. Journal of Philosophy, 65, 12736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, T. Y. (1998). The surprise examination or unexpected hanging paradox. American Mathematical Monthly, 105, 4151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. (2000). Elements of Intuitionism (second edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerbrandy, J. (2007). The surprise examination in dynamic epsitemic logic. Synthese, 155, 2133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, W., & Montague, R. (1960). A paradox regained. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1, 7990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritchman, S., & Raz, R. (2010). The surprise examination paradox and the second incompleteness theorem. Notices of the AMS, 57, 14541458.Google Scholar
Levy, K. (2009). The solution to the surprise exam paradox. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 47, 131158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcoci, A. (2010). The surprise examination paradox in dynamic epistemic logic. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
O’Conner, D. (1948). Pragmatic paradoxes. Mind, 57, 358359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, P., & Sugden, R. (1989). The backward induction paradoxes. The Journal of Philosophy, 86, 169182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. (1953). On a so-called paradox. Mind, 62, 6566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. (1958). The paradox of the unexpected examination. Mind, 67, 382384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1993). Backward induction arguments: A paradox regained. Philosophy of Science, 60, 133144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, R. A. (1984). Conditional Blindspots and the Knowledge Squeeze: A solution to the prediction paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62, 126135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troelstra, A. S., & van Dalen, D. (1988). Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction, Vols. 1 and 2. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.Google Scholar
van Atten, M. (2004). On Brouwer. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Philosophers Series.Google Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H., & Kooi, B. (2006). The secret of my success. Synthese, 151, 201232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weihrauch, K. (2000). Computable Analysis: An Introduction. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, P. (1952). The prediction paradox. Mind, 61, 265269.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and Its Limits. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A SOLUTION TO THE SURPRISE EXAM PARADOX IN CONSTRUCTIVE MATHEMATICS
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

A SOLUTION TO THE SURPRISE EXAM PARADOX IN CONSTRUCTIVE MATHEMATICS
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

A SOLUTION TO THE SURPRISE EXAM PARADOX IN CONSTRUCTIVE MATHEMATICS
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *