# 152 decision/envelope.p

Someone has prepared two envelopes containing money. One contains twice as
much money as the other. You have decided to pick one envelope, but then the
following argument occurs to you: Suppose my chosen envelope contains \$X,
then the other envelope either contains \$X/2 or \$2X. Both cases are
equally likely, so my expectation if I take the other envelope is
.5 * \$X/2 + .5 * \$2X = \$1.25X, which is higher than my current \$X, so I
should change my mind and take the other envelope. But then I can apply the
argument all over again. Something is wrong here! Where did I go wrong?

In a variant of this problem, you are allowed to peek into the envelope
you chose before finally settling on it. Suppose that when you peek you
see \$100. Should you switch now?

decision/envelope.s

Let's follow the argument carefully, substituting real numbers for
variables, to see where we went wrong. In the following, we will assume
the envelopes contain \$100 and \$200. We will consider the two equally
likely cases separately, then average the results.

First, take the case that X=\$100.

"I have \$100 in my hand. If I exchange I get \$200. The value of the exchange
is \$200. The value from not exchanging is \$100. Therefore, I gain \$100
by exchanging."

Second, take the case that X=\$200.

"I have \$200 in my hand. If I exchange I get \$100. The value of the exchange
is \$100. The value from not exchanging is \$200. Therefore, I lose \$100
by exchanging."

Now, averaging the two cases, I see that the expected gain is zero.

So where is the slip up? In one case, switching gets X/2 (\$100), in the
other case, switching gets 2X (\$200), but X is different in the two
cases, and I can't simply average the two different X's to get 1.25X.
I can average the two numbers (\$100 and \$200) to get \$150, the expected
value of switching, which is also the expected value of not switching,
but I cannot under any circumstances average X/2 and 2X.

This is a classic case of confusing variables with constants.

OK, so let's consider the case in which I looked into the envelope and
found that it contained \$100. This pins down what X is: a constant.

Now the argument is that the odds of \$50 is .5 and the odds of \$200
is .5, so the expected value of switching is \$125, so we should switch.
However, the only way the odds of \$50 could be .5 and the odds of \$200
could be .5 is if all integer values are equally likely. But any
probability distribution that is finite and equal for all integers
would sum to infinity, not one as it must to be a probability distribution.
Thus, the assumption of equal likelihood for all integer values is
always switch. This is reminiscent of the plethora of proofs that 0=1;
they always involve some illegitimate assumption, such as the validity
of division by zero.

Limiting the maximum value in the envelopes removes the self-contradiction
and the argument for switching. Let's see how this works.

Suppose all amounts up to \$1 trillion were equally likely to be
found in the first envelope, and all amounts beyond that would never
appear. Then for small amounts one should indeed switch, but not for
amounts above \$500 billion. The strategy of always switching would pay
off for most reasonable amounts but would lead to disastrous losses for
large amounts, and the two would balance each other out.

For those who would prefer to see this worked out in detail:
Assume the smaller envelope is uniform on [\$0,\$M], for some value
of \$M. What is the expectation value of always switching? A quarter of
the time \$100 >= \$M (i.e. 50% chance \$X is in [\$M/2,\$M] and 50% chance
the larger envelope is chosen). In this case the expected switching
gain is -\$50 (a loss). Thus overall the always switch policy has an
expected (relative to \$100) gain of (3/4)*\$50 + (1/4)*(-\$50) = \$25.
However the expected absolute gain (in terms of M) is:

```  / M
|    g f(g) dg,   [ where f(g) = (1/2)*Uniform[0,M)(g) +
/-M                              (1/2)*Uniform(-M,0](g). ]

= 0.  QED.
```

OK, so always switching is not the optimal switching strategy. Surely
there must be some strategy that takes advantage of the fact that we
looked into the envelope and we know something we did not know before
we looked.

Well, if we know the maximum value \$M that can be in the smaller envelope,
then the optimal decision criterion is to switch if \$100 < \$M, otherwise stick.
The reason for the stick case is straightforward. The reason for the
switch case is due to the pdf of the smaller envelope being twice as
high as that of the larger envelope over the range [0,\$M). That is, the
expected gain in switching is (2/3)*\$100 + (1/3)*(-\$50) = \$50.

What if we do not know the maximum value of the pdf? You can exploit
the "test value" technique to improve your chances. The trick here is
to pick a test value T. If the amount in the envelope is less than the
test value, switch; if it is more, do not. This works in that if T happens
to be in the range [M,2M] you will make the correct decision. Therefore,
assuming the unknown pdf is uniform on [0,M], you are slightly better off
with this technique.

Of course, the pdf may not even be uniform, so the "test value" technique
may not offer much of an advantage. If you are allowed to play the game
repeatedly, you can estimate the pdf, but that is another story...

Continue to: