This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Game theory Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

The unexpected hanging paradox likewise deals with knowledge and reasoning about the future.

Focal point (game theory) deals with "attractive" strategies (not very formally put). Elias (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Added both to "See also". Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of assuming vague general probabilities of "almost always correct" we can assign numbers to this to make the problem solvable. For example, let's say the predictor is an expert poker player and he has millions of hands of poker as experience/data and his prediction rate of whether someone is bluffing/not is 90%. So his expertise is guessing whether someone will do something they claim they will do.

If his success rate is 90%, then we can deterministically decide which option is optimal. Choosing A+B will result in exactly $1000 90% of the time, and $1001000 10% of the time. So each time we choose A+B we gain on average $100100 (if we choose A+B 100 times, this is the average result. Median result is $1000). If we choose B, the result will be $1000000 90% of the time and $0 10% of the time for a total of $900000 on average. Because $900000 > $100100 then B is the choice which maximizes gain for the chooser.

90% is not considered almost certain by most people, yet B is the correct choice for all values above 90. The truth is, flipping a completely random coin results in A+B = $501,000 while B = $500,000

Even a slightly better than random guesser of 51% accurate will make A+B = 491,000 and B = 510,000 Ergo, if the guesser is even the slightest bit better than random, B will be the correct choice. This is due to the large disparity between the values of $1000 and $1,000,000. If the assigned values are different, then the statistics will be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.241.159.102 (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the argument works for "even a slightly better than random guesser" is why vague general words like "almost always correct" are used in the first place. There are actually different versions of Newcomb's problem, from the "limit case" where the predictor is 100% correct to less stark correctness cases.

What you gave is the expected utility argument. The dominance argument says you should always two-box regardless of the predictor's accuracy, and that's the puzzle. I'm not sure how to make this clearer in the article, at the moment. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the qualifier of "almost surely correct" is chosen precisely to confound analysis. The following statements describe the problem. The predictor is very good at predicting. Some of the past players have one boxed, and some of them have two boxed. Everyone who one boxed got a million, and everyone who has two boxed got 1000. It's completely obvious that since everyone who one boxed got one million, and everyon4e who has two boxed got a million, you should one box. it's also completely obvious that regardless of the contents of the boxes, picking both gets more than picking just the unknown, so you should pick both. ~2025-42980-39 (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been made far less clear by putting analysis in the definition section, putting a verbose image with little informational content in the lead, and expanding the "interpretations" section with many functionally-identical sub-cases and with too many images. The verbose style should be trimmed to fit Wikipedia's summary-style.

At the very least, any analysis should be moved out of the definition section. EV stuff (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "analysis in the definition section"? I wouldn't call anything in there "analysis". There is nothing there about what the best strategy is.

The cited WP:RS distinguish the interpretations in the article, so if you think that they're functionally identical, that's WP:OR.

The images are informative precisely to distinguish the different interpretations. If you think they're functionally identical even after looking at the clearly different pictures, I'm not sure how to make the article clearer to you. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis is different but the results are functionally identical as specified in the "strategies" section. What I'm saying is that the article is not written in summary style, instead it's too verbose with too many sub-cases that are functionally identical and are too detailed for a summary-style article. The entire "interpretations" sections should be cut to a single paragraph. Same with the image in the lead: it's extremely verbose and it says what the table below it says far more succinctly in 21 words and far less space. EV stuff (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article has 3789 words, which means according to WP:SIZERULE, it is not too long. All current content is needed to cover WP:RS material. Readers who want an even shorter summary can just stick to the lead section and not read further, especially since the image has the whole definition. (The image is not redundant partly for this reason and partly because it is somewhat more visually-oriented than the text version, which is how diagrams work.) Thiagovscoelho (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the lead is far less clear and far less concise than the definition section, it's a detriment to clarity. I have no issue with the length of the article or lack of reliable sources, my issue with the article is that delving at length into functionally-identical interpretations is not summary-style. EV stuff (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been made more concise now. However, all content in the Interpretations section is required to cover the topic, and you are wrong about them being "functionally identical". Thiagovscoelho (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange to me that the obvious relation to Russell’s paradox is not discussed in the article. Here, I have found the page that explains the relation, together with an interesting analysis of the problem. https://zedlx.com/articles-single-pane/philosophy/newcomb-paradox ~2026-15172-53 (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]