Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Why the Infinite Decision Puzzle is Puzzling.Jeffrey A. Barrett & Frank Arntzenius - 2002 - Theory and Decision 52 (2):139-147.
    Pulier (2000, Theory and Decision 49: 291) and Machina (2000, Theory and Decision 49: 293) seek to dissolve the Barrett–Arntzenius infinite decision puzzle (1999, Theory and Decision 46: 101). The proposed dissolutions, however, are based on misunderstandings concerning how the puzzle works and the nature of supertasks more generally. We will describe the puzzle in a simplified form, address the recent misunderstandings, and describe possible morals for decision theory.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Barrett and Arntzenius's Infinite Decision Puzzle.Mark J. Machina - 2000 - Theory and Decision 49 (3):291-295.
    The Barrett and Arntzenius (1999) decision paradox involves unbounded wealth, the relationship between period-wise and sequence-wise dominance, and an infinite-period split-minute setting. A version of their paradox involving bounded (in fact, constant) wealth decisions is presented, along with a version involving no decisions at all. The common source of paradox in Barrett–Arntzenius and these other examples is the indeterminacy of their infinite-period split-minute setting.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations