The classical version of the surprise examination paradox goes as follows: a teacher tells his students that an examination will take place on the next week, but they will not know in advance the precise date on which the examination will occur. The examination will thus occur surprisingly. The students reason then as follows. The examination cannot take place on Saturday, they think, otherwise they would know in advance that the examination would take place on Saturday and therefore it could not occur surprisingly. Thus, Saturday is eliminated. In addition, the examination can not take place on Friday, otherwise the students would know in advance that the examination would take place on Friday and so it could not occur surprisingly. Thus, Friday is also ruled out. By a similar reasoning, the students eliminate successively Thursday, Wednesday, Tuesday and Monday. Finally, every day of the week is eliminated. However, this does not preclude the examination of finally occurring by surprise, say on Wednesday. Thus, the reasoning of the students proved to be fallacious. However, such reasoning seems intuitively valid. The paradox lies here in the fact the students’ reasoning is apparently valid, whereas it finally proves inconsistent with the facts, i.e. that the examination can truly occur by surprise, as initially announced by the professor.

In order to introduce the dichotomous analysis (Franceschi 2005) that can be applied to the surprise examination paradox, it is worth considering first two variations of the paradox that turn out to be structurally different. The first variation is associated with the solution to the paradox proposed by Quine (1953). Quine considers then the student’s final conclusion that the examination can not take place surprisingly on any day of the week. According to Quine, the student’s error lies in the fact of not having envisaged from the beginning that the examination could take place on the last day. Because the fact of considering precisely that the examination will not take place on the last day finally allows the examination to occur by surprise on the last day. If the student had also considered this possibility from the beginning, he would not have been committed to the false conclusion that the examination can not occur surprisingly.

The second variation of the paradox that proves interesting in this context is the one associated with the remark made by several authors (Hall 1999, p. 661, Williamson 2000), according to which the paradox emerges clearly when the number *n* of units is large. Such a number is usually associated with a number *n* of days, but we may as well use hours, minutes, seconds, etc.. An interesting feature of the paradox is indeed that it emerges intuitively more significantly when large values of *n* are involved. A striking illustration of this phenomenon is thus provided by the variation of the paradox that corresponds to the following situation, described by Timothy Williamson (2000, p 139).

Advance knowledge that there will be a test, fire drill, or the like of which one will not know the time in advance is an everyday fact of social life, but one denied by a surprising proportion of early work on the Surprise Examination. Who has not waited for the telephone to ring, knowing that it will do so within a week and that one will not know a second before it rings that it will ring a second later?

The variation described by Williamson corresponds to the announcement made to someone that he/she will receive a phone call during the week, but without being able to determine in advance at what exact second the latter event will occur. This variation highlights how surprise may occur, in a quite plausible way, when the value of *n* is high. The unit of time considered here by Williamson is the second, in relation with a time duration that corresponds to one week. The corresponding value of *n* here is very high and equal to 604800 (60 x 60 x 24 x 7) seconds. However, it is not necessary to take into account a value as large of *n*, and a value of *n *equal to 365, for example, should also be well-suited.

The fact that two versions of the paradox that seem a priori quite different coexist suggests that two structurally different versions of the paradox could be inextricably intertwined within the surprise examination paradox. In fact, if we analyse the version of the paradox that leads to Quine’s solution, we find that it has a peculiarity: it is likely to occur for a value of *n* equal to 1. The corresponding version of the professor’s announcement is then as follows: “An examination will take place tomorrow, but you will not know in advance that this will happen and therefore it will occur surprisingly.” Quine’s analysis applies directly to this version of the paradox for which *n* = 1. In this case, the student’s error resides, according to Quine, in the fact of having only considered the hypothesis: (i) “the examination will take place tomorrow and I predict that it will take place.” In fact, the student should also have considered three cases: (ii) “the examination will not take place tomorrow, and I predict that it will take place” (iii) “the examination will not take place tomorrow and I do not predict that it will take place” (iv) “the examination will take place tomorrow and I do not predict that it will take place.” And the fact of having envisaged hypothesis (i), but also hypothesis (iv) which is compatible with the professor’s announcement would have prevented the student to conclude that the examination would not finally take place. Therefore, as Quine stresses, it is the fact of having only taken into account the hypothesis (i) that can be identified as the cause of the fallacious reasoning.

As we can see it, the very structure of the version of the paradox on which Quine’s solution is based has the following features: first, the non-surprise may actually occur on the last day, and second, the examination may also occur surprisingly on the last day. The same goes for the version of the paradox where *n* = 1: the non-surprise and the surprise may occur on day *n*. This allows to represent such structure of the paradox with the following matrix S[*k*, *s*] (where *k* denotes the day on which the examination takes place and S[*k*, *s*] denotes whether the corresponding case of non-surprise (*s* = 0) or surprise (*s* = 1) is possible (in this case, S[*k*, *i*] = 1) or not (in this case, S[*k*, *i*] = 0)):

day | non-surprise | surprise |

1 | 1 | 1 |

2 | 1 | 1 |

3 | 1 | 1 |

4 | 1 | 1 |

5 | 1 | 1 |

6 | 1 | 1 |

7 | 1 | 1 |

*Matrix structure of the version of the paradox corresponding to Quine’s solution for n = 7 (one week)*

day | non-surprise | surprise |

1 | 1 | 1 |

*Matrix structure of the version of the paradox corresponding to Quine’s solution for n = 1 (one day)*

Given the structure of the corresponding matrix which includes values that are equal to 1 in both cases of non-surprise and of surprise, for a given day, we shall term *joint* such a matrix structure.

If we examine the above-mentioned variation of the paradox set by Williamson, it presents the particularity, in contrast to the previous variation, of emerging neatly when *n* is large. In this context, the professor’s announcement corresponding for example to a value of *n* equal to 365, is the following: “An examination will take place in the coming year but the date of the examination will be a surprise.” If such a variation is analysed in terms of the matrix of non-surprise and of surprise, it turns out that this version of the paradox has the following properties: the non-surprise cannot occur on the first day while the surprise is possible on this very first day; however, on the last day, the non-surprise is possible whereas the surprise is not possible.

day | non-surprise | surprise |

1 | 0 | 1 |

… | … | … |

365 | 1 | 0 |

*Matrix structure of the version of the paradox corresponding to Williamson’s variation for n = 365 (one year)*

The foregoing allows now to identify precisely what is at fault in the student’s reasoning, when applied to this particular version of the paradox. Under these circumstances, the student would then have reasoned as follows. The surprise cannot occur on the last day but it can occur on day 1, and the non-surprise can occur on the last day, but cannot occur on the first day. These are proper instances of non-surprise and of surprise, which prove to be disjoint. However, the notion of surprise is not captured exhaustively by the extension and the anti-extension of the surprise. But such a definition is consistent with the definition of a vague predicate, which is characterized by an extension and an anti-extension which are mutually exclusive and non-exhaustive. Thus, the notion of surprise associated with a disjoint structure is that of a *vague* notion. Thus, the student’s error of reasoning at the origin of the fallacy lies in not having taken into account the fact that the surprise is in the case of a disjoint structure, a vague concept and includes therefore the presence of a penumbra corresponding to *borderline* cases between non-surprise and surprise. Hence, the mere consideration of the fact that the surprise notion is here a vague notion would have prohibited the student to conclude that S[*k*, 1] = 0, for all values of *k*, that is to say that the examination can not occur surprisingly on any day of the period.

Finally, it turns out that the analysis leads to distinguish between two independent variations with regard to the surprise examination paradox. The matrix definition of the cases of non-surprise and of surprise leads to two variations of the paradox, according to the *joint*/*disjoint* duality. In the first case, the paradox is based on a *joint* definition of the cases of non-surprise and of surprise. In the second case, the paradox is grounded on a *disjoint* definition. Both of these variations lead to a structurally different variation of the paradox and to an independent solution. When the variation of the paradox is based on a *joint* definition, the solution put forth by Quine applies. However, when the variation of the paradox is based on a *disjoint* definition, the solution is based on the prior recognition of the vague nature of the concept of surprise associated with this variation of the paradox.

As we finally see it, the dichotomous analysis of the surprise examination paradox leads to consider the class of the matrices associated with the very definition of the paradox and to distinguish whether their structure is joint or disjoint. Therefore, it follows an independent solution for each of the resulting two structurally different versions of the paradox.

Franceschi, P., Une analyse dichotomique du paradoxe de l’examen surprise, *Philosophiques*, vol. 32-2, 2005, pp. 399-421, A dichotomic analysis of the surprise examination paradox (English translation).

Franceschi, P., “Éléments d’un contextualisme dialectique” (in english), in Liber Amicorum Pascal Engel, J. Dutant, G. Fassio & A. Meylan (éd.), Université de Genève, 2014, pp. 581-608.

Ambiguous images ** ▣** Arbitrary focus

**Bistable perception**

**▣****Complementarity relationship**

**▣****Conflict resolution**

**▣****▣**Conflict resolution with matrices of concepts

**▣**Conflict types relating to matrices of concepts

**▣**Contrary relationship

**▣**Courage

**▣**Dialectical contextualism

**▣**Dialectical monism

**▣**Dialectical monism in Aztec philosophy

**▣**Dialectical monism in Heraclitus

**▣**Dichotomic analysis

**▣**Dichotomic analysis applied to paradox resolution

**▣**Dichotomous reasoning

**▣**Disqualification of one pole

**▣**Disqualification of the positive

**▣**Doctrine of the mean

**▣**Doomsday argument

**▣**Dualities

**▣**Dual poles

**▣**Extreme opposition

**▣**General cognitive distortions

**▣**Instance of one-sidedness bias

**▣**Liar paradox

**▣**Matrix of concepts

**▣**Maximization

**▣**Mental filter

**▣**Minimization

**▣**Bistable cognition

**▣**Omission of the neutral

**▣**One-sidedness bias

**▣**One-sided viewpoint

**▣**Opposition relationship

**▣**Principle of dialectical indifference

**▣**Requalification into the other pole

**▣**Reference class

**▣**Reference class problem

**▣**Reference class problem in philosophical paradoxes

**▣**Reference class problem in the Doomsday argument

**▣**Reference class problem in Hempel’s paradox

**▣**Reference class problem in the surprise examination paradox

**▣**Selective abstraction

**▣**Sorites paradox

**▣**Specific cognitive distortions

**▣**Surprise examination paradox

**▣**System of taxa

**▣**Two-sided viewpoint

**▣**Viewpoint of a duality

**▣**Viewpoint of a pole