Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:41:41.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A SOLUTION TO THE SURPRISE EXAM PARADOX IN CONSTRUCTIVE MATHEMATICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2012

MOHAMMAD ARDESHIR  and
RASOUL RAMEZANIAN
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:[email protected], [email protected]
*DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, SHARIF UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, P.O. BOX 11365-9415, TEHRAN, IRAN E-mail:[email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 679 - 686
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, 127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, T. Y. (1998). The surprise examination or unexpected hanging paradox. American Mathematical Monthly, 105, 41–51.Google 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, 21–33.Google Scholar
Kaplan, W., & Montague, R. (1960). A paradox regained. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 1, 79–90.Google Scholar
Kritchman, S., & Raz, R. (2010). The surprise examination paradox and the second incompleteness theorem. Notices of the AMS, 57, 1454–1458.Google Scholar
Levy, K. (2009). The solution to the surprise exam paradox. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 47, 131–158.Google Scholar
Marcoci, A. (2010). The surprise examination paradox in dynamic epistemic logic. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
O’Conner, D. (1948). Pragmatic paradoxes. Mind, 57, 358–359.Google Scholar
Pettit, P., & Sugden, R. (1989). The backward induction paradoxes. The Journal of Philosophy, 86, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. (1953). On a so-called paradox. Mind, 62, 65–66.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. (1958). The paradox of the unexpected examination. Mind, 67, 382–384.Google Scholar
Sobel, J. H. (1993). Backward induction arguments: A paradox regained. Philosophy of Science, 60, 133–144.Google Scholar
Sorensen, R. A. (1984). Conditional Blindspots and the Knowledge Squeeze: A solution to the prediction paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62, 126–135.Google 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, 201–232.Google Scholar
Weihrauch, K. (2000). Computable Analysis: An Introduction. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Weiss, P. (1952). The prediction paradox. Mind, 61, 265–269.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and Its Limits. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar