---
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 Déverse 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: ~
<script src="//archive-bar.soton.ac.uk/archive-bar.js"></script>