Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:05:20.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: How To Solve Probability Teasers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Maya Bar-Hillel
Maya Bar-Hillel*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, Nathan (1986) criticized Bar-Hillel and Falk's (1982) analysis of some classical probability puzzles on the grounds that they wrongheadedly applied mathematics to the solving of problems suffering from “ambiguous informalities”. Nathan's prescription for solving such problems boils down to assuring in advance that they are uniquely and formally soluble—though he says little about how this is to be done. Unfortunately, in real life problems seldom show concern as to whether their naturally occurring formulation is or is not ambiguous, does or does not allow for unique formalization, etc. One step towards dealing with such problems intelligently is to recognize certain common cognitive pitfalls to which solvers seem vulnerable. This is discussed in the context of some examples, along with some empirical results.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 348 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

REFERENCES

Bar-Hillel, M., and Falk, R. (1982), “Some Teasers Concerning Conditional Probabilities”, Cognition 11: 109–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckenbach, E. F. (1970), “Combinatorics for School Mathematics Curricula”, in L. Råde (ed.), The Teaching of Probability and Statistics. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 17–51.Google Scholar
Bertrand, J. (1889), Calcul des Probabilites. Paris: Gauthiers Villars.Google Scholar
Feller, W. (1950), An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Implications, vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Frauenthal, J. C. and Saaty, T. L. (1979), “Foresight-Insight-Hindsight”, Two Year College Mathematics Journal 10: 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freund, J. E. (1965), “Puzzle or Paradox?”, The American Statistician 19: 29.Google Scholar
Gamow, G. and Stern, M. (1958), Puzzle Math. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. (1961), More Mathematical Puzzles and Diversions. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. (1975), Aha! Gotcha. New York: Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Glickman, L. V. (1982), “Families, Children and Probabilities”, Teaching Statistics 4: 66–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnedenko, B. V. (1962), The Theory of Probability. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gridgeman, N. T. (1967), Letter. The American Statistician 21: 38.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G.; Snell, J. L.; and Thompson, G. L. (1957), Introduction to Finite Mathematics. New York: Prentice Hall, Chap. 4.Google Scholar
Loyer, M. W. (1983), “Bad Probability, Good Statistics, and Group Testing for Binomial Estimation”, The American Statistician 37: 57–59.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F. (1965), Fifty Challenging Problems in Probability with Solutions. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Nathan, A. (1986), “How Not to Solve It”, Philosophy of Science 53: 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neisser, H. (1966), Letter. The American Statistician 20: 37.Google Scholar
Northrop, E. P. (1944), Riddles in Mathematics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar