Taken by surprise: The paradox of the surprise test revisited
- 40 Downloads
A teacher announced to his pupils that on exactly one of the days of the following school week (Monday through Friday) he would give them a test. But it would be a surprise test; on the evening before the test they would not know that the test would take place the next day. One of the brighter students in the class then argued that the teacher could never give them the test. “It can't be Friday,” she said, “since in that case we'll expect it on Thurday evening. But then it can't be Thursday, since having already eliminated Friday we'll know Wednesday evening that it has to be Thursday. And by similar reasoning we can also eliminate Wednesday, Tuesday, and Monday. So there can't be a test!”
The students were somewhat baffled by the situation. The teacher was well-known to be truthful, so if he said there would be a test, then it was safe to assume that there would be one. On the other hand, he also said that the test would be a surprise. But it seemed that whenever he gave the test, it wouldn't be a surprise.
Well, the teacher gave the test on Tuesday, and, sure enough, the students were surprised.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [AB]A. R. Anderson and N. D. Belnap, Entailment, the Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Princeton University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
- [Au]A. K.Austin, ‘On the unexpected examination’, Mind 78, 1969, p. 137.Google Scholar
- [Bi]R.Binkley, ‘The surprise test examination in modal logic’, Journal of Philosophy 65 (5), 1968, p. 127–136.Google Scholar
- [Bo]G.Boolos, ‘The logic of provability’, American Mathematical Monthly 91 (8), 1984, pp. 470–480.Google Scholar
- [Ga]M.Gardner, ‘A new paradox, and variations on it, about a man condemned to be hanged’, Scientific American 208, 1963, pp. 144–154.Google Scholar
- [KM]D.Kaplan and R.Montague, ‘A paradox regained’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 1, 1960, pp. 79–90.Google Scholar
- [Ko]D.Kozen, ‘Results on the propositional μ-calculus’, Theoretical Computer Science 27, 1983, pp. 333–354.Google Scholar
- [Kv]I.Kvart, ‘The paradox of surprise examination’, Logique et Analyse 11, 1976, pp. 66–72.Google Scholar
- [Le]D. J. Lehmann, talk given at IBM San Jose, May, 1985.Google Scholar
- [MB]AMargalit and M.Bar-Hillel, ‘Expecting the unexpected’, Philosophia 13, 1984, pp. 263–288.Google Scholar
- [OC]D. J.O'Connor, ‘Pragmatic paradoxes’, Mind 57, 1948, pp. 358–359.Google Scholar
- [Pa]D. M. R. Park, ‘Fixpoint induction and proof of program semantics’, Machine Intelligence 5 (ed. A. Meltzer and D. Michie), Edinburgh University Press, 1970, pp. 59–78.Google Scholar
- [Pr]V. R. Pratt, ‘A decidable μ-calculus’ (preliminary report), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual IEEE Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, 1981, pp. 421–477.Google Scholar
- [SD]D.Scott and J. de Bakker, A Theory of Programs, unpublished, IBM, Vienna, 1969.Google Scholar
- [Sc]M.Scriven ‘Paradoxical announcements’, Mind 60, 1951, pp. 303–307.Google Scholar
- [Sh]R. Shaw, ‘The paradox of the unexpected examination’, Mind 67, pp. 382–384.Google Scholar