Talk:The Bottle Imp

message: It would be interesting to see what would happen if the idea behind the paradox was put in a real world setting. I propose the following simplification -:
A token is issued at random to a group of players who are given a fixed amount of time in which they can either sell, give away or offer money to have the token taken away from them. Anybody who accepts a token is given
10 pounds from a central pool.
At the end of the game anybody left still holding the token has to pay 100 pounds towards the central pool. To make the game more interesting and to prevent endless swapping of the token, there is a limit to the number of times the token may be exchanged, say 10 times.
Because the central pool never loses money at the end of the game, there is probably a negative value to entering the game. Therefore the administrators of the game should offer each player a small amount of money to enter. It would be interesting to find out what how large an amount would be necessary.
The game could be simplified further if players are restricted to giving away the token, and if there are fixed times when the token may be exchanged. With the fixed times rule there is no need to have a separate rule restricting the number of exchanges.
I think these changes would make the game less interesting but probably easier to analyse mathematically.
I've been trying to think of how we can reduce the idea to a two person zero sum game where we can calculate optimal stategies, but I think that would alter the theme behind the paradox too much.
--Zfishwiki 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game theoretic version of paradox 

message: How about a very simple reason to why it's sold: because the person who buys it has no idea about the paradox and only thinks "well, I can easily sell it because the next person can also easily sell it". This is as far as the reasoning goes. Done deal.
I want to add it to the page, but since this is my own conclusion, I can't :( --Romanski 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reason why it's sold 

message: I just read this story here:
http://gaslight.mtroyal.ab.ca/bottlimp.htm
It doesn't match the description here. There is no requirement that the nature of the bottle be disclosed to buyers. Also, there is no reference to Cain or giants in the story. The only history given is told by one of the characters, so shouldn't be taken as truth (in the world of the story).
The paradox was first proposed by Richard Sharvy
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sharvy+bottle+imp
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sharvy+bottle+imp&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
Richard Sharvy was my father, so I don't believe I am allowed by Wikipedia rules to edit the paradox section of this entry.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs).
:Go ahead - if someone doesn't do it first.  (And remember to sign your comments on talk pages)--Henrygb 13:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections and References 

message: Couldn't the owner just pay another person (in coin) to take the bottle? Then, the latter could pay an even higher "compensation" to the next potential owner and so on, with the "compensation" forever rising. Surely, that would constitute a loss! (As for the problem of finding the money, well, duh! ask the imp for it ;-) --Toredid 00:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A really simple solution 

message: I don't think I'm allowed to edit the paradox section, since I'm related to the prime reference (R. Sharvy). However, I believe it contains mistakes.
1) The interpretation of the paradox as a test of love is interesting, but encylcopedias aren't supposed to offer their own interpretations of things.
2) Some of the solutions to the paradox aren't correct. Wishing for immortality undermines the conditions of the sale: you have to sell it for a loss in order to avoid burning in hell for eternity. (Likewise, you cannot wish the bottle destroyed.) Abandoning the bottle, giving the bottle away, and giving it away in addition to money, do not constitute a sale of the bottle in the usual sense. A character in the story tries to abandon it, but cannot.
3) Encylopedias are not supposed to offer their own solutions to things. It is false that the characters in the story consider the resolutions mentioned above and in the article.
4) The paradox isn't the question posed "What is the lowest price the bottle can be sold for?" The paradox is that it seems no rational person could ever buy the bottle at all, even for all the money in the world. Yet, the existence of past purchases and sales of the bottle prove that it is possible to buy the bottle, have all one wishes, and not burn in hell. Also, the premise of the story doesn't really "create" a paradox--"suggests" would be a better verb. Bsharvy 07:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradox Corrections 

message: Unless I'm missing something vital, the story is incredibly unclear. For example, see the line that says "...it was owned by Napoleon and Captain James Cook and accounted for their great successes, but each sold it — leading both of them to meet a nasty end as a consequence." Nowhere else in the story is there any indication that there is any consequence for selling the bottle. Also, in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, it clearly says that Keawe sold the bottle, then returned to Hawai'i, and then sold the bottle. What? Later, we are told that when Keawe attempts to sell the bottle in French Polynesia, "the suspicious natives won't touch the cursed bottle." Why wouldn't Keawe sell the bottle to someone without telling that person of its nature? Either Keawe is just incredibly good, or there is some unimaginable curse attached to that course of action, or the bottle is somehow visibly magical. In any case, this should be specified. --192.245.43.102 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Been awhile since I read it, but I believe the story actually implies that Cook and Napoleon died badly because they didn't get rid of the bottle before they died, not because they sold it.  I fixed your second issue (you are correct, and I believe someone haphazardly edited that section, intended to move the line about selling it to a friend, and failed to remove it from its original location).  As for your third issue, I believe the implication was that the Polynesians were very superstitious and wanted nothing to do with a magic bottle, cursed or not. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot needs editing 

message: The paradox assumes that currency unit is the lowest possible price, but several countries used to have coins denominated at fraction of unit, such as quarter farthing. The owner of the bottle could even influence the central bank to issue such coins. · Naive cynic · 20:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  fractional coins