Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Solving the Hard Problem of Bertrand's Paradox

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1403.4139 v2 pith:K4X7G2YT submitted 2014-03-08 physics.hist-ph math-phmath.MPmath.PRquant-ph

classification physics.hist-phmath-phmath.MPmath.PRquant-ph
keywords problembertrandhardparadoxaverageeasypossibledifferent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Bertrand's paradox is a famous problem of probability theory, pointing to a possible inconsistency in Laplace's principle of insufficient reason. In this article we show that Bertrand's paradox contains two different problems: an "easy" problem and a "hard" problem. The easy problem can be solved by formulating Bertrand's question in sufficiently precise terms, so allowing for a non ambiguous modelization of the entity subjected to the randomization. We then show that once the easy problem is settled, also the hard problem becomes solvable, provided Laplace's principle of insufficient reason is applied not to the outcomes of the experiment, but to the different possible "ways of selecting" an interaction between the entity under investigation and that producing the randomization. This consists in evaluating a huge average over all possible "ways of selecting" an interaction, which we call a 'universal average'. Following a strategy similar to that used in the definition of the Wiener measure, we calculate such universal average and therefore solve the hard problem of Bertrand's paradox. The link between Bertrand's problem of probability theory and the measurement problem of quantum mechanics is also briefly discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Probability and Ambiguity

    math.PR 2024-12 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper re-derives known answers to classic probability puzzles and claims the obtuse-triangle probability is 3/4, but that claim relies on an unstated uniform-largest-angle assumption.

Pith tools