> Having chosen an envelope at will, but before inspecting it, you are given the chance to switch envelopes. Should you switch? Normally we would assume there is someone who owns the envelopes of money. Now their incentive could be to offer to switch only if the envelope you chose contains more money (so they have a chance of keeping more). More like Monty Hall. Even without that, after switching, should you switch b…
hmm, I don't really see where the probability of 50% comes from? even if we assume that we don't have any contextual knowledge about what amounts would typically be carried in wallets, the probability of winning would surely have to depend in some way on the amount currently in my wallet? in the extreme case, if I had zero cash, my probability of winning (not just drawing) would be zero, since we can't carry negative…
Two envelopes problem
111–120 of 318 posts
Re: Two envelopes problem
#112[edit] Now submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31568880
Re: Two envelopes problem
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every program has bugs, every program has inefficiencies. Therefore every program can be eventually reduced down to a single instruction, which will be incorrect.
> Every program has bugs Where is the bug in this programm? END
Re: Two envelopes problem
#114Also see the Surprise Execution Paradox. It's a favourite of mine. [edit] Now submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31568880
Re: Two envelopes problem
#115Re: Two envelopes problem
#116Re: Two envelopes problem
#117Unless the imaginary “giver” shows you what was in the other imaginary envelope you’ll never know. We don’t even know if this imaginary person is telling the truth. How do you know that “One contains twice as much as the other?”
I have never been offered a choice of cash containing envelopes in my life – maybe because I have never worked in a job where bribes could be usefully employed.
The whole “problem” is about as worthwhile a subject of contemplation as, say, “Do flying pigs taste more like partridge than earth-bound pigs?”
Does anyone know of a paradox that works/exists in the real world? I mean something a bit more substantial than whether some random dude claims to be a liar and you supposedly bother to wonder whether or not he’s telling the truth.
Re: Two envelopes problem
#118For whatever reason I can't get past my intuitive feeling that this problem is just a simple 50/50 and these proofs are just fancy window dressing.
Re: Two envelopes problem
#119However, I now have two random integers with no bits of information about either, where I have now removed information from the system (the relationship between the number of envelopes and the contents of one being twice the other), while leaving the states of the system intact.
The envelope I in effect already have yields no bits of information because I didn't choose it, it is just the random (no information) one I start with, whereas the fact of the existence of the second envelope contains more information than my current envelope selection, and I have a decision to make about whether to switch.
The null state of the system is me holding an envelope with no information, and addition of a second envelope is a new state of possibilities, where the information in this two envelope system is now non-zero.
The decision with the most information is to switch. This additional information is independent of the implied desire for (A|2A), whereas the original problem is defined as the best possible decision is the one with the most information.
Further, if I perform some operation with those two random integers (Za and Zb), the result has less "entropy" than the two random inputs in isolation, as by correlating them via a function I have produced some non-zero negentropy between them, say using xor, which is how I added information back into the system after removing it using the random numbers.
I get this new number N composed of my two random numbers ( N = xor(Za, Zb) ), and I need to apply it to my choice of, not which envelope to select first (A|B) - but whether I should switch. The only way to get this number with information in it is to have assigned a random number to both envelopes and used the two bits of negative information to cancel each other - and therefore the only choice with non-zero information is the one which includes both envelopes - hence the decision to switch is the only one that yields the non-zero information outcome.
Again, intuitively it seems related to how multiplying two negative integers yields a positive one, multiplying two entropy (negative information) sources yields negentropy (positive information). That could further imply that the information in the decision to switch is also based on whether the number of envelopes is even or odd, or maybe prime or composite? Sounding this out, it may also be related to graphs where the number of nodes/edges (where edges represent switching decisions and nodes envelopes) either forms a closed path or open one, and in the case of an even number of envelopes you get the max information by swtiching n-times, and in the case of odd ones, you switch n+1 times.
Short version is, the choice with the highest number of bits of information in the two envelope case is to switch because it is predicated on there being more envelopes than the one you have started with.
Re: Two envelopes problem
#120> Imagine you are given two identical envelopes, each containing money. One contains twice as much as the other. You may pick one envelope and keep the money it contains. Having chosen an envelope at will, but before inspecting it, you are given the chance to switch envelopes. Should you switch? Unless the imaginary “giver” shows you what was in the other imaginary envelope you’ll never know. We don’t even know if th…
But for what it's worth, there are a ton of thought experiments inspired by or lifted from the real world. The Monty hall problem is taken from a game show - it even has a contestant who must choose one of three doors...