One Observation behind Two-Envelope Puzzles
In two famous and popular puzzles a participant is required to compare two numbers of which she is shown only one. In the first one there are two envelopes with money in them. The sum of money in one of the envelopes is twice as large as the other sum. An envelope is selected at random and handed to you. If the sum in this envelope is x, then the sum in the other one is (1/2)(2x) + (1/2)(0.5x) = 1.25x. Hence, you are better off switching to the other envelope no matter what sum you see, which is paradoxical. In the second puzzle two distinct numbers are written on two slips of paper. One of them is selected at random and you observe it. How can you guess, with probability greater than 1/2 of being correct, whether this number is the larger or the smaller? We show that there is one principle behind the two puzzles: The ranking of n random variables X1, ... , Xn cannot be independent of each of them, unless the ranking is fixed. Thus, unless there is nothing to be learned about the ranking, there must be at least one variable the observation of which conveys information about it.
|Date of creation:||08 Oct 2003|
|Note:||Type of Document - ; pages: 6 . A PowerPoint XP presentation is available at|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://econwpa.repec.org|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nalebuff, Barry, 1989. "The Other Person's Envelope Is Always Greener," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 171-181, Winter.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpga:0310004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.