This site has been permanently archived. This is a static copy provided by the University of Southampton.
--- abstract: 'This paper presents a dichotomic analysis of the surprise examination paradox. In section 1, I analyse the surprise notion in detail. I introduce then in section 2, the distinction between a monist and dichotomic analysis of the paradox. I also present there a dichotomy leading to distinguish two basically and structurally different versions of the paradox, respectively based on a conjoint and a disjoint definition of the surprise. In section 3, I describe the solution to SEP corresponding to the conjoint definition. Lastly, I expose in section 4, the solution to SEP based on the disjoint definition.' altloc: - http://www.univ-corse.fr/~franceschi chapter: ~ commentary: ~ commref: ~ confdates: ~ conference: ~ confloc: ~ contact_email: ~ creators_id: [] creators_name: - family: Franceschi given: Paul honourific: '' lineage: '' date: 2002-04 date_type: published datestamp: 2002-04-19 department: ~ dir: disk0/00/00/21/84 edit_lock_since: ~ edit_lock_until: ~ edit_lock_user: ~ editors_id: [] editors_name: [] eprint_status: archive eprintid: 2184 fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png;/2184/3/%24sep%2Den.pdf full_text_status: public importid: ~ institution: ~ isbn: ~ ispublished: ~ issn: ~ item_issues_comment: [] item_issues_count: 0 item_issues_description: [] item_issues_id: [] item_issues_reported_by: [] item_issues_resolved_by: [] item_issues_status: [] item_issues_timestamp: [] item_issues_type: [] keywords: 'surprise examination paradox, surprise exam paradox' lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:54:55 latitude: ~ longitude: ~ metadata_visibility: show note: ~ number: ~ pagerange: ~ pubdom: FALSE publication: ~ publisher: ~ refereed: FALSE referencetext: | AYER, A. J. 1973. On a Supposed Antinomy. Mind 82: 125-6. BINKLEY, R. 1968. The Surprise Examination in Modal Logic. Journal of Philosophy 65: 127-36. CHALMERS, D. 2002. The St. Petersburg two-envelope paradox. Analysis 62: 155-7 . CHOW, T. Y. 1998. The Surprise Examination or Unexpected Hanging Paradox. The American Mathematical Monthly 105: 41-51. DIETL, P. 1973. The Surprise Examination. Educational Theory 23: 153-8. FRANCESCHI, P. 1999. Comment l'Urne de Carter et Leslie se D�verse dans celle de Hempel. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29: 139-56. English translation under the title 'The Doomsday Argument and Hempel's Problem' at http://www.univ-corse.fr/~franceschi HALL, N. 1999. How to Set a Surprise Exam. Mind 108: 647-703. JANAWAY, C. 1989. Knowing About Surprises: A Supposed Antinomy Revisited. Mind 98: 391-410. MONTAGUE, R. & KAPLAN, D. 1960. A Paradox Regained. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 3: 79-90. O' CONNOR, D. 1948. Pragmatic paradoxes. Mind 57: 358-9. QUINE, W. 1953. On a So-called Paradox. Mind 62: 65-6. SCRIVEN, M. 1951. Paradoxical announcements. Mind 60: 403-7. SHAW, R. 1958. The Paradox of the Unexpected Examination. Mind 67: 382-4. SMITH, J. W. 1984. The surprise examination on the paradox of the heap. Philosophical Papers 13: 43-56. SOAMES, S. 1999. Understanding Truth. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. SORENSEN, R. A. 1982. Recalcitrant versions of the prediction paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69: 355-62. SORENSEN, R. A. 1988. Blindspots. Oxford: Clarendon Press. WRIGHT, C. & SUDBURY, A. 1977. The Paradox of the Unexpected Examination. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 55: 41-58. relation_type: [] relation_uri: [] reportno: ~ rev_number: 12 series: ~ source: ~ status_changed: 2007-09-12 16:43:21 subjects: - phil-epist succeeds: ~ suggestions: ~ sword_depositor: ~ sword_slug: ~ thesistype: ~ title: A Dichotomic Analysis of the Surprise Examination Paradox type: preprint userid: 2943 volume: ~