Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1223617379 by INic (talk) Undo ridiculous revert alleging "vandalism". yet another dumb kneejerk Wikipedia revert by people who don't look at what they're doing and have no idea about the subject matter. I really do not know why I bother any more. |
Undid revision 1225511641. While "vandalism" was a thoughtless edit summary, this material inappropriate in the lead. There are lots of right ways to analyze the problem, and lots of wrong ways that seem right -- that's why it's a paradox. We don't spell them all out in the lead. |
||
Line 6:
{{Cquote|Imagine you are given two identical [[envelope]]s, 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?
}}
Since the situation is symmetric, it seems obvious that there is no point in switching envelopes. On the other hand, a simple calculation using expected values suggests the opposite conclusion, that it is always beneficial to swap envelopes, since the person stands to gain twice as much money if they switch, while the only risk is halving what they currently have.<ref name=":5" />
==Introduction==
| |||