Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  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  
  • An Infinite Decision Puzzle.Jeffrey Barrett & Frank Arntzenius - 1999 - Theory and Decision 46 (1):101-103.
    We tell a story where an agent who chooses in such a way as to make the greatest possible profit on each of an infinite series of transactions ends up worse off than an agent who chooses in such a way as to make the least possible profit on each transaction. That is, contrary to what one might suppose, it is not necessarily rational always to choose the option that yields the greatest possible profit on each transaction.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • On some paradoxes of the infinite.Victor Allis & Teunis Koetsier - 1991 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (2):187-194.
    In the paper below the authors describe three super-tasks. They show that although the abstract notion of a super-task may be, as Benacerraf suggested, a conceptual mismatch, the completion of the three super-tasks involved can be defined rather naturally, without leading to inconsistency, by means of a particular kinematical interpretation combined with a principle of continuity.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations