Talk:The Bottle Imp

This story was taken as the theme of the trick taking card game Flaschenteufel (bottle imp) by German game designer Günter Cornett. The game is credited as having a very strong theme for such a simple game.

see http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/619

Game theoretic version of paradox
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)

Inflation is another solution
Another potential solution to prospective buyers is to use the concept of inflation. A penny today will be worth less in true buying power than a penny ten years from now due to inflation. Therefore you could theoretically by the bottle for a penny now, then sell the bottle for a penny after ten years of inflation and claim that you have effectively sold it as a loss, because the penny you received is worth less than the penny you spent initially. Dugwiki 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but this is not in the book so original research. It might not work, and then your soul would be at risk. --Henrygb 23:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I never suggested placing this in the article. The reason I only posted it here on the talk page and not in the article is because it is unreferenced original research.


 * And you're correct, there is a risk that, for example, the economy will go into a period of deflation and a penny will rise in value. However, the point is that there is also a high probability that relying on inflation will succeed, so the base case of "one penny" isn't a guaranteed "no sale" under an inflationary model.  In fact, if you allow for unlimited inflation over time, there theoretically is no specific minimal amount at which you couldn't sell the bottle at an inflationary loss.  Dugwiki 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since inflation is not one of the resolutions considered by the characters, I have removed this passage:
 * Due to inflation, one could constantly sell it back and forth because one the person of one country's money is worth less than anothers, then inflates to be worth more, whereupon it is sold back to the first person.
 * It belongs elsewhere in the article, if at all. 68.163.227.97 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

unref tag?
On December 11, Dugwiki added the unreferenced tag to the main page. I'm opening this discussion to find out what specifically needs to be referenced here. The details of the short story are referenced -- the introductory sentence tells the name of the story and the author and the year it was written. The paradox itself is a plot element in the story, and so it too is referenced.

There is a hypothetical resolution in the last paragraph of the article that is not part of the story. For my money, the story and the paradox are two separate topics (one is a work of literature by a noted author; the other is a philosophical concept), and that hypothetical outcomes shouldn't be part of an article about the story.

I'm proposing removing the last paragraph from the article and the unref tag, and inviting anyone who wants to write about the paradox instead of the story to do so separately. -- Heath 66.32.117.111 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are currently two reference problems. First, there is no actual formal citation included in the article for the short story.  The article mentions in the introduction that it is an 1893 short story, but it doesn't list the corresponding citation at the end of the article for reference.  I wasn't disputing that the article is inaccurate; just that as a style matter it should list a formal citation for the short story at the end of the article in a reference section.


 * The other problem is, as you implied, the second paragraph which delves into an analysis of the paradox at hand. This paragraph goes beyond simply reciting what happens in the short story and into researching the intricate nature of the paradox at hand.  Again, while the information is presumably accurate, it needs a reference to an outside published source that duplicates the findings.  If there isn't such a source, than the paragraph could be considered original research and possibly deleted.


 * So the corrections that are necessary are to 1) add a reference section at the end of the article that includes a short story citation for the story itself; and 2)include in the reference section a citation to an outside published discussion of the nature of the implied paradox. Hope that helps! Dugwiki 16:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first correction -- wouldn't you agree that the link to the actual original text of the short story at WikiSource is a reference for the story itself? If not, then I'm not understanding what it is you're asking for here.  --Heath 66.32.117.111 18:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No for two reasons. First, the WikiSource doesn't appear to be referenced either. Unless I missed something it's strictly a cut-and-paste of the story with no citation to show where the text was copied from. Second, citations for Wiki articles should appear in the Wiki article themselves and not in other Wikimedia articles (ie don't cite Wiki as a reference). So it looks like both this article and the Wikisource copy of the text need citations. Dugwiki 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The story is reference enough for verifiability and the link to Wikisource provides the whole text. --Henrygb 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, the text on Wikisource isn't referenced either. There are no formal citations in either the article or the Wikisource for someone to verify the text is accurate.  How do we know the story was published in 1893? Or that it was written by Stevenson? Or that the version presented on Wikisource is accurate? The reason for citations is so that editors can look at the external source the text is derived from.


 * So long story short, no, the story itself is not reference enough. Dugwiki 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this point. It sounds as if you're saying that if the citation was a Harper-Collins anthology, you'd be satisfied with that, but because the citation is WikiSource, you're not.  Now that the story has fallen into the public domain, WikiSource has just as much right to publish the story as any other publisher, and to determine it a "less worthy" source strikes me as POV.  All of these questions you raise could be asked about any other source ("How do we know the version Harper-Collins printed is accurate? etc.")


 * The tag you added states that the article "does not cite its references", when clearly it does. What you're doing is defending the use of the tag because you find the citation to be unworthy.  I didn't move the tag to the second section, but I agree that's where it belongs. --Heath 66.32.117.111 04:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are any of the issues you mention unverifiable? Have you tried to check any of them? --Henrygb 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you? Moreover, if they're not verifiable, then by definition the article would be "unverifiable" and either labeled as such or deleted. Dugwiki 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that it's not the responsibility of the person pointing out a lack of citation to find a citation. It's the responsibility of the person contributing the article to provide appropriate reference. Dugwiki 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and even if you accept the story's text as reference for the plot of the story, it still doesn't act as a reference for detailed analysis of the story or its paradox. Dugwiki 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you read the story?--Henrygb 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did the read the story, and it does not directly deal with the "paradox" in the second section of the article. Rather, it focuses more on the suspense of whether or not each individual character will be able to sell the bottle at succeedingly lower amounts. The paradox, by contrast, is more of a mathematical proposition that, logically, noone should ever buy the bottle in the first place because by process of induction there is no lowest acceptable price at which to buy it.


 * By the way, I notice that the unref tag was moved to that section specifically, which is fine as a compromise. I still think the article and Wikisource both need a more formal citation indicating the publication the story is taken from, but I'll leave finding that citation to someone with the appropriate bibliographical resources or the original editor. Dugwiki 23:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, along the above lines it would be interesting to include a description of where the short story first appeared (In a magazine? A short story collection? Where was it first published?). Dugwiki 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing - the text at Wikisource must have come from somewhere. Just cite the source the original editor copied and pasted it from. Dugwiki 23:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Another reason why it's sold
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)

Corrections and References
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)

A really simple solution
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)

Yup, does the original story contain a condition against doing this? Definitely feel it's a logical loophole in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.142.74 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe, say, sell it to someone who doesn't believe in hell, or souls, or even wishes, but could use a nice cheap bottle. 129.97.219.244 (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Paradox Corrections
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)

the card game
There are 3 suits in the game, red, blue and yellow. If possible, one MUST follow suit. Part of the strategy is to get rid of one color as soon as possible.

Plot needs editing
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)
 * 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)

fractional coins
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)