Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: the earliest extant correspondence between pierre rmond de montmort and a member of the bernoulli family is a letter from montmort to johann bernoulli dated february 27 , 1703 , concerning a paper on calculus that the latter had written for the acadmie royale des sciences in paris @xcite . they corresponded sporadically over the next few years . on april 29 , 1709 , montmort sent bernoulli a copy of his book on probability , _ essay danalyse sur les jeux de hazard _ , that he recently had published @xcite . the book is the first in a series of books in probability published by several others over the years 1708 to 1718 in what hald [ ( @xcite ) , page 191 ] calls the `` great leap forward '' in probability . bernoulli replied with a gift of a copy of his nephew s doctoral dissertation @xcite , the second book in hald s `` great leap forward '' ; nicolaus bernoulli s book dealt with applications of probability . once johann bernoulli received his copy of _ essay danalyse _ , he sent , on march 17 , 1710 , a detailed set of comments on the book . in the letter bernoulli included another set of comments on _ essay danalyse _ , this one by his nephew nicolaus ( @xcite , pages 283303 ) . thus began a series of correspondence between montmort and nicolaus bernoulli on problems in probability . montmort included much of this correspondence in part v of the second edition of _ essay danalyse _ @xcite . the correspondence between montmort and nicolaus bernoulli after 1713 , left unpublished and largely ignored by historians , contains scientific news and further discussion of problems in probability . the major topic is a continuing discussion of issues related to the card game le her . next , in terms of ink spilt on probability , are discussions of the `` problem of the pool , '' or waldegrave s problem , generalized to more than three players , and of the game les trennes ( which may be translated as `` the gifts '' ) . the correspondence also contains discussions of various problems in algebra , geometry , differential equations and infinite series .    as an aristocrat , montmort s network included both political and scientific connections . his letters to bernoulli contain some references to his political activities that sometimes kept him from replying promptly . his brother , nicolas rmond , was chef de conseil for phillipe duc dorlans , who became regent of france after his uncle louis xiv died in 1715 ( @xcite , page 599 ) . among the mathematicians of the era , montmort corresponded with isaac newton , gottfried leibniz , brook taylor and abraham de moivre , in addition to the bernoullis as well as several others . as a talented amateur mathematician , his work was well regarded by the mathematicians of his day . he was generous to his scientific friends . he received as guests to the chteau de montmort nicolaus bernoulli , brook taylor and one of the sons of johann bernoulli . he also sent gifts of cases of wine and champagne to both newton and taylor . le her is a game of strategy and chance played with a standard deck of fifty - two playing cards . the simplest situation is when two players play the game , and the solution is not simply determined even in that situation . montmort calls the two players pierre and paul . pierre deals a card from the deck to paul and then one to himself . paul has the option of switching his card for pierre s card . pierre can only refuse the switch if he holds a king ( the highest valued card ) . after paul makes his decision to hold or switch , pierre now has the option to hold whatever card he now has or to switch it with a card drawn from the deck . however , if he draws a king , he must retain his original card . the player with the highest card wins the pot , with ties going to the dealer pierre . the game can be expanded to more than two players . montmort [ ( @xcite ) , pages 186187 ] originally described the problem for four players and posed the question : what are the chances of each player relative to the order in which they make their play ?    because of the winning conditions , it is obvious that one would want to switch low cards and keep high ones . the key is to find what to do with the middle cards , such as seven and eight , when two players are playing the game . in other cases , cards are clearly too low to keep or too high to switch , being much below or above the average in a random draw . naturally , the threshold would be lower with more than two players .    in part essay danalyse _ , only the game with two players is considered . initially , montmort and nicolaus bernoulli wrote back and forth about the problem and came to the same solution . however , two of montmort s friends contended that this solution was incorrect . these were an english gentleman named waldegrave and an abbot whose abbey was only a league and a half ( about 5.8 kilometers ) from chteau de montmort ( @xcite , page 338 ) . montmort identified waldegrave only as the brother of the lord waldegrave who married the natural daughter of king james ii of england . lord waldegrave is henry waldegrave , 1st baron waldegrave , and his wife is henrietta fitzjames , daughter of james ii , and his mistress arabella churchill . the abbot is the abb dorbais ; montmort also refers to him as the abb de monsoury . the reason for the two appellations for the abbot is that his full name is pierre cuvier de montsoury , abb dorbais . he has been described as `` un prodige de bon coeur , durbanit et de science '' ( @xcite ) . for the spelling choice between montsoury and monsoury , it should be noted that montmort often spelled his name `` monmort . '' two other problems were discussed extensively in the correspondence . the first is the problem of the pool , a problem that waldegrave suggested to montmort and solved himself ( @xcite , page 318 ) . in _ essay danalyse _ the problem is solved for three players . it is often called waldegrave s problem @xcite . the `` pool '' is a way of getting three or more players to gamble against one another , when the game put into play is for two players only . in the situation for three players ( montmort uses the names pierre , paul and jacques ) , all three begin by putting an ante into the pot . then pierre and paul play a game against each other . the winner plays against jacques and the loser puts money into the pot . the game continues until one player has beaten the other two in a row . that player takes the pot . the game can be expanded to more than three players , but that situation was not fully treated in _ essay danalyse_. the second is the problem of solving the game les trennes ( or `` estreine , '' an alternative old french spelling ) . as described by montmort [ ( @xcite ) , pages 406407 ] , this is a strategic game between a father and his son . the father holds an odd or even number of tokens in his hand , which his son can not see . when the son guesses even , he receives a gift of four cus ( silver coins ) if he is correct and nothing if wrong . when the son guesses odd , he receives one cu if he is correct and nothing if wrong . the discussion of this game in the correspondence is only brought in to enlighten le her whose strategic nature is in some important respects essentially similar . montmort concludes the last letter ( to bernoulli ) that appears in _ essay danalyse _ with a remark that waldegrave had volunteered to take care of getting the book printed in paris . montmort s letter was dated november 15 , 1713 , and was written from paris . what is also of concern to us are the letters after this date and how these letters relate to earlier discussions . the unpublished correspondence begins with a letter from montmort to bernoulli dated january 25 , 1714 , in which he says that he has sent bernoulli two copies of the second edition of _ essay danalyse_. montmort was still in paris , where he claimed to have been for three months . he was staying at a hotel in rue des bernardins , which in modern paris is only a walk of 350 meters to the printer , jacques quillau in rue galande . presumably , waldegrave s help consisted mainly in dealing with the printer and the proof sheets as they came off the press , thus relieving montmort of some tedious work . to understand the discussion of le her after 1713 , it is necessary to describe the treatment of the game as it appears in the second edition of _ essay danalyse_. hald [ ( @xcite ) , pages 314322 ] provides a detailed description of the mathematical calculations involved in assessing the game . yet he devotes little space to elucidating the discussions among bernoulli , montmort and waldegrave , as well as the abb dorbais , concerning the issues surrounding these mathematical calculations . it is the substance of these discussions that are of interest to us . hald s only comment on the discussion over le her concerns a comment made by waldegrave and abb dorbais to the effect that bernoulli s reasoning in obtaining his mathematical solution is faulty . after pointing out their observation that bernoulli s solution fails to account for a player s probability of playing in a certain way , hald [ ( @xcite ) , page 315 ] claims :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ it is no wonder that bernoulli does not the implications of this remark , since the writers themselves have not grasped the full implication of their point of view . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    it is indeed true that there was some confusion on bernoulli s side which he deftly tried to hide . henny [ ( @xcite ) , page 502 ] comments that he is amazed to find expressed in the letters many concepts and ideas that appear in modern game theory . at the same time , he is surprised to find waldegrave defending his position so strongly against bernoulli who was the superior mathematician . henny states further that waldegrave did not have the necessary mathematical skills to provide a mathematical proof of his results .    as we will show in a review of the treatment of le her in _ essay danalyse _ and the subsequent unpublished correspondence , both hald s and henny s insights fall short of the mark . , though obviously correct for the limited aspect in which he viewed the problem , is unsatisfactory to common sense , which suggests that in all circumstances there must be , according to the degree of our knowledge , at least one rule of conduct which shall be not less satisfactory than any other ; and this his discussion fails to provide . '' our discussion below will show that this assessment is misinformed . ] one reason they fall short is that they do not consider the full range of the various events that were under discussion and their associated probabilities . two events are natural for a probabilist to consider . the first is the distribution of the cards to pierre and paul . the second is the randomizing device used to come up with the mixed strategy prescribing when the players should hold and when they should switch . the randomizing device considered in _ essay danalyse _ is a bag containing black and white counters or tokens ( the old french word used is `` jetton '' ) . the third event that montmort , waldegrave and bernoulli consider ( but not hald or henny ) is difficult , or perhaps impossible , to quantify . this is the possibility that paul , say , is a poor player and does not follow a strategy that is mathematically optimal , or the possibility that paul , say , is a very good player who tries to trick pierre into making a poor choice . this kind of event unfolds regularly in modern poker games . another reason for which hald and henny see some confusion in the discussions among bernoulli , montmort and waldegrave is that what we are seeing in the correspondence is the complete unfolding of a problem from its initial statement , and discussions around it , to a complete solution . this is different from a `` textbook '' statement of a problem followed by a solution . in the latter case , the problem and solution are both well laid out . in the former case , there is some grappling with the problem until it becomes clear how to proceed . we begin with the correspondence in _ essay _ _ danalyse _ where le her is first mentioned . in johann bernoulli s 1710 letter to montmort in _ essay danalyse _ , he suggests more efficient methods to reach montmort s conclusions for a variety of problems and in some cases generalizes montmort s results . there is only one reference to the problem of le her , which is the second of four problems proposed in montmort [ ( @xcite ) , pages 185187 ] :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the second and the third [ problem ] seem to me amenable , but not without much difficulty and work , that i prefer to defer to you and learn the solution , than to work long at the expense of my ordinary occupations that leave me scarcely any time to apply myself to other things . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    in his reply to this letter , which is dated november 15 , 1710 ( @xcite , pages 303307 ) , montmort makes no reference to this passage . nicolaus bernoulli s first letter to montmort , dated february 26 , 1711 , makes no reference to the game le her . it is a note in montmort s reply to nicolaus bernoulli , dated april 10 , 1711 ( @xcite , pages 315323 ) that initiates the discussion of montmort s second problem :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i started some time ago to work on the solution of problems that i propose at the end of my book ; i find that in le her , when there are only two players left , pierre and paul , paul s advantage is greater than 1 in 85 , and less than 1 in 84 . this problem has difficulties of a singular nature . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    in a postscript to this letter , montmort makes an additional remark :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ as there are few copies of my book left , there will soon be a new edition . when i have decided , i will ask you permission , and your uncle , to insert your beautiful letters which will make the principal embellishment . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    it is this announcement that may have motivated nicolaus bernoulli to continue his correspondence with montmort and to send him much interesting material . publishing mathematical material outside a scientific society or without a patron to cover the costs was an expensive proposition , one that montmort could afford . because of the specialized type that was used and the accompanying necessary skill of the typesetter , the cost of a mathematical publication was well above the norm for less technical books . bernoulli could get his results in print at no cost to himself . bernoulli responded with a long letter , dated november 10 , 1711 ( @xcite , pages 323337 ) . in this letter , he announces , among many other things , that he has also solved the two - person case for le her ( @xcite , page 334 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i also solved the problem on le her in the simplest case ; here is what i found . if we suppose that each player observes the conduct that is most advantageous to him , paul must only hold to a card that is higher than a seven and pierre to one that is higher than an eight , and we find under this supposition that the lot of pierre will be to that of paul as 2697 is to 2828 . supposing that paul also holds to a seven , then pierre must hold to an eight , and their lots will still be as 2697 to 2828 . nevertheless it is more advantageous for him not to hold to a seven than to hold to it , which is a puzzle that i leave you to develop . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    this passage is carefully worded , yet it will be misinterpreted by montmort and waldegrave . as we will see , a key aspect that is neglected by montmort and waldegrave is the antecedent of bernoulli s conditional statement starting with `` if we suppose that each player observes the conduct  '' montmort s reply , dated march 1 , 1712 ( @xcite , pages 337347 ) , highly praises bernoulli s prior letter . he complains that , being in paris , he has had no time and peace to think on his own and , as a consequence , the main object of his letter is to report progress made by his two friends , the abb dorbais and waldegrave , on a problem proposed by bernoulli , and on the problem of le her . on the latter , montmort reports that `` they dare however not submit to your decisions '' ( @xcite , page 338 ) . however , as he says in a passage that is key to understanding the forthcoming controversy , the abb dorbais also previously disagreed with montmort :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ when i worked on le her a few years ago , i told m. labb de monsoury what i had found , but neither my calculations nor my arguments could convince him . he always maintained that it was impossible to determine the lot of pierre and paul , because we could not determine which card pierre must hold to , and vice versa , which results in a circle , and makes in his opinion the solution impossible . he added a quantity of subtle reasonings which made me doubt a little that i had caught the truth . that is where i  was when i proposed that you examine this problem ; my goal was to make sure from you of the goodness of my solution , without having the trouble of recalling my ideas on this which were completely erased . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    montmort then claims that bernoulli s solution confirms what he had found , a decision that prompts a reply from waldegrave objecting to bernoulli s solution , quoted at length in montmort ( @xcite ) , pages 339340 . according to waldegrave and the abb dorbais , it is not true that paul must hold only to an eight and pierre to a nine . rather , that paul should be indifferent to hold to a seven or to switch , and that pierre should be indifferent to hold to an eight or to switch . waldegrave wrote the following to montmort ( @xcite , page 339 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ we argue that it is indifferent to paul to switch or hold with a seven , and to pierre to switch or hold with an eight . to prove this , i  must first explain their lot in all cases . that of paul having a seven , is @xmath0 when he switches , and when he holds on to it his lot is @xmath1 if pierre holds on to an eight , and @xmath2 if pierre switches with an eight . the lot of pierre having an eight is @xmath3 if he holds on to it , and @xmath4 if he switches in the case that paul only holds on to a seven ; and @xmath5 by holding on to it , and @xmath6 by switching in the case that paul holds on to a seven , so here they are . the lots of paul @xmath7 , those of pierre @xmath8 or @xmath9 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    based on the numbers he obtains , waldegrave observes that `` 720 being more below 780 than 816 is above , it appears that paul must have a reason to switch with 7 '' ( @xcite , page 339 ) . the differences , @xmath10 and @xmath11 , are in the ratio @xmath12 , or @xmath13 , a ratio which later enters the discussion .    in the rest of his argument , waldegrave talks of a weight instead of a reason . he first lets the weight that leads paul to switch be @xmath14 , and the weight that leads pierre to switch be @xmath15 . and he argues that the same weights lead paul and pierre to both strategies . @xmath14 leads paul to switch with 7 and , as a consequence , it also leads pierre to switch his 8 ; but what leads pierre to switch his 8 must lead paul to hold with 7 . so , @xmath14 leads paul to both switch with a 7 and hold on to it . the same goes for pierre . therefore , `` it is false that paul must only hold on to an 8 , and pierre to a 9 , '' which was bernoulli s claimed solution . the word `` probability '' comes up only once in this discussion , in the conclusion of the excerpt from waldegrave s letter to montmort . waldegrave writes ( @xcite , page 340 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ apparently mr . bernoulli was simply looking at the fractions that express the different lots of pierre and paul , without paying attention to the probability of what the other will do . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    montmort leaves the discussion there without further comment . 240pt@lcc@ + & * switch the 8 * & * hold the 8 * + & * ( and under)*&*(and over ) * + switch the 7 & & + ( and under ) & & + hold the 7 & & + ( and over ) & & +    upon receiving montmort s letter , bernoulli agrees with these figures , saying that `` the lots they found for pierre and paul are very right '' ( @xcite , page 348 ) . and yet , when bernoulli proposes his solution , and when montmort eventually publishes a table of probabilities as an appendix to _ essay danalyse _ ( @xcite , page 413 ) , the numbers are different . the bernoulli  montmort probabilities are shown in table  [ table1 ] , which appears in hald ( @xcite ) , page 318 . none of the parties in this debate actually explain their calculations . waldegrave s probabilities are justified in todhunter ( @xcite ) , pages 107110 ; the bernoulli  montmort probabilities are in hald ( @xcite ) , pages 315318 . the difference in the probabilities is that waldegrave s probabilities are conditional on paul having a seven in his hand and the bernoulli  montmort probabilities are the marginal probabilities for all cards that paul may hold .    in a letter dated june 2 , 1712 , bernoulli replies to waldegrave s argument by accusing him of committing a fallacy . he argues that if we suppose that @xmath14 leads paul to switch with a seven , and so leads pierre to switch with an eight ( if pierre knows paul switches with seven ) , then it also leads paul to hold on to a seven . therefore , @xmath14 both leads paul to switch with a seven and to hold on to a seven . his conclusion is that ( @xcite , page 348 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ we are supposing two contradictory things at the same time ; that is , that paul knows and ignores at the same time what pierre will do , and pierre what paul will do . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    bernoulli explains that if we do not commit this fallacy regarding what paul and pierre know about the other s intent , we are led to reasoning in a circle , which shows that waldegrave s argument can not show anything . this argument is peculiar , and seems to suggest that bernoulli does not understand waldegrave s point . it might , however , be simply a misinterpretation of waldegrave s argument , for it is expressed in terms of weight rather than in terms of probability . the word `` weight '' or `` poids '' in french offers more opportunity for misinterpretation . moreover , bernoulli admits having written his letter hastily , as he was preparing for a long trip through the netherlands and england . as a result of this travel , some subsequent letters are delayed , and the arguments they contain do not follow the chronological order of when the letters were written . a letter to bernoulli , dated september 5 , 1712 ( @xcite , pages 361370 ) , announces that waldegrave and the abb dorbais have seen bernoulli s reply in which he accuses them of committing a fallacy . montmort includes a note from the abb dorbais in which he claims that waldegrave has written a beautiful and precise reply to bernoulli s objection ; the rebuttal , however , is not included . in this note , the abb dorbais also enjoins montmort to take a side in this dispute between them . this suggests that , even if montmort thanked bernoulli for his solution , which he claimed agreed with his own , montmort has not yet made up his mind as to whether bernoulli really solved the problem . the next letter concerning le her is from bernoulli to montmort , dated december 30 , 1712 ( @xcite , pages 375394 ) . adding important pieces to the puzzle , it contains a three - page discussion of le her ( bernoulli mentions having just received the june 2 letter , since it was sent from switzerland to holland , then to england , and finally back to switzerland ) . bernoulli insists that , despite waldegrave s arguments , paul does not do as well by abiding to the maxim of holding to a seven , than that of switching with a seven . bernoulli then says ( @xcite , page 376 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ if it were impossible to decide this problem , paul having a seven would not know what to do ; and to rid himself [ from deciding ] , he would subject himself to chance , for example , he would put in a bag an equal number of white tokens and black tokens , with the intent of holding to a seven if he draws a white one , & to switch with a seven if he draws a black one ; because if he put an unequal number he would be lead more to one party than to the other , which is against the assumption . pierre with an eight would do the same thing to see whether he must switch or not . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    this comment introduces with clarity the idea of chance by `` the way of tokens '' ( as they will say later ) . what bernoulli says here seems to confirm that , at first , when he accused waldegrave of committing a fallacy , he did not interpret waldegrave s weights as probabilities . nonetheless , he suggests that the only probability allocation compatible with the supposed state of ignorance of the players is that each player chooses a strategy with probability @xmath16 . under these choices , he computes the lot of paul ( which is then @xmath17 ) and concludes that it would be a bad thing for paul to randomize in this way , since he could guarantee himself a lot of @xmath18 . therefore , bernoulli concludes paul must always switch with a seven . as bernoulli says ( @xcite , page 376 ) , `` it is better to make the choice where we risk less . '' he then explains the reasoning that he had left out of his hastily written letter from june 2 . in contemporary terms , he calculated the unconditional probability of winning under each pure strategy profile ( without assuming that any card has been dealt yet ) . he displays a refined version of the reasoning that led to accusing waldegrave of a fallacy , yet it does not do full justice to waldegrave s idea . eight months later , on august 20 , 1713 , montmort [ ( @xcite ) , pages 395400 ] finally replies to bernoulli , complaining that he has , despite his philosophical inclinations , been involved in political activities , and so he did not have the leisure for intellectual work . thus , his letter only contains scientific news . there is only one brief mention of le her ; he tells bernoulli that , despite his last effort to provide a thorough and precise argument , waldegrave and the abb dorbais are still unconvinced by his claimed solution . shortly after , in a letter dated september 9 , 1713 , bernoulli also asks montmort to explain his own views on the dispute . montmort obliges him in his letter dated november 15 , 1713 . this is the last letter published in the second edition of _ essay danalyse _ ( @xcite , pages 403413 ) . the letter also contains an excerpt of a letter from waldegrave and a table of the lots of paul and pierre for the four crucial combinations of strategies , which are summarized in table  [ table1 ] .    here , then , is montmort s understanding of the situation . to begin with , he agrees with bernoulli that it is not indifferent to paul to switch or hold with a seven , and to pierre to switch or hold with an eight , because of bernoulli s calculations of the unequal chances for each strategy . ( this shows that bernoulli and montmort use `` indifferent '' in the sense of having the same probability of winning . for waldegrave and dorbais , however , `` indifferent '' seems to mean , perhaps more awkwardly , that no strategy dominates the other in probability . ) this being said , montmort nonetheless disagrees with bernoulli that this establishes the strategy as a maxim , that is , as a rule of conduct that must be obeyed invariably to obtain the best results . rather , he thinks that it is impossible to establish such a maxim ( @xcite , page 403 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ t]he solution of the problem is impossible , that is , we can not prescribe to paul the conduct that he must adopt when he has a seven , and to pierre the conduct he must adopt when he has an eight . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    he grants that , if one is to choose a fixed and determined maxim , then switching on seven , for paul , will be better than any other , yet paul can hope to make his lot better . why , then , would a solution be impossible ? would the solution not be the optimum that one can reach in paul s hope of making his lot better ? montmort claims that , whereas he used to think that the use of black and white tokens to randomize strategies could avoid the `` circle , '' he does not think that anymore . he gives a general formula to find the probability of winning with a certain probability allocation for what we call a mixed strategy : @xmath19 where @xmath20 is paul s probability of switching with seven , @xmath21 is paul s probability of holding the seven , @xmath22 is pierre s probability of switching with an eight , and @xmath23 is pierre s probability of holding on to an eight . but how should the probabilities be chosen ? montmort claims that any argument will only inform us of what paul must do conditionally to what pierre does and vice versa , which leads us into a circle once again . he concludes that bernoulli s arguments to show that a circle does not occur are wrong , and instead formulates this thesis ( @xcite , page 404 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ w]e must suppose that both players are equally subtle , and that they will choose their conduct only based on their knowledge of the conduct of the other player . however , since there is here no fixed point , the maxim of a player depends on the yet unknown maxim of the other , so that if we establish one , we draw from this supposition a contradiction that shows that we must not have established it . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    montmort also disagrees with bernoulli that , under pain of contradiction , if we are to use white and black tokens to randomize , we must use an equal number of tokens . instead , he thinks that the probability of winning calculated for the fixed and determined maxims shows that paul must switch more often with a seven than hold on to it . yet , he maintains ( @xcite , page 405 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ but how much more often must he switch rather than hold , and in particular what he must do ( here and now ) is the principal question : the calculation does not teach us anything about that , and i take this decision to be impossible . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    thus , montmort believes , it seems , that there is no optimal probability allocation . but he has another reason for believing that the solution of the game is impossible . he has in mind the game les trennes ( @xcite , pages 406407 ) . montmort also believes that it is impossible to prescribe any strategy of play in les trennes because the players might always try , and indeed good players will try , to deceive other players into thinking that they will play something they are not playing , thus trying to outsmart each other ( `` jouer au plus fin '' is the phrase used in french ) .    as he was finishing his letter , montmort received one from waldegrave and quoted extensively from it to bernoulli . _ essay danalyse _ essentially concludes with waldegrave s letter . waldegrave refers to a formula , which is not included by montmort ; it presumably is the formula displayed above . he explains that , if @xmath24 and @xmath25 ( so that the probability of paul switching with a seven is @xmath26 ) , then the lot of pierre is going to be @xmath27 no matter what @xmath22 and @xmath23 are . this shows that @xmath27 is paul s minimum lot . he can only adopt another conduct in the hope of making his lot better . this shows , he claims , that both bernoulli and ( formerly ) himself were wrong to claim that the lots of paul was to that of pierre as 2828 is to 2697 ; if both players play in the most advantageous way , paul s lot is @xmath28 . waldegrave is convinced that this is something that both bernoulli and montmort will agree to , now that it is agreed that one can use a randomized strategy . he also explains that , if pierre uses @xmath29 and @xmath30 , then @xmath27 will also be paul s maximum lot . waldegrave also asserts that it is impossible to establish a maxim ; he grants , however , that it is impossible for him to show this with the same level of evidence . this is often taken incorrectly as evidence of a lack of waldegrave s mathematical abilities . waldegrave is instead referring to the situation in which players may try to outsmart each other . waldegrave agrees that if paul does not use @xmath24 and @xmath25 , then it is possible for paul to do better than @xmath31 provided that pierre does not play in the best way . on the other hand , it would be worse if pierre plays correctly . furthermore , waldegrave remarks ( @xcite , page 411 ) :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ what means are there to discover the ratio of the probability that pierre will play correctly to the probability that he will not ? this appears to me to be absolutely impossible , and thus leads us into a circle . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    as with montmort , his main concern is that it is always possible for the players to try to outsmart each other ( `` jouer au plus fin '' ) . examining the detailed arguments provided by montmort , bernoulli and waldegrave reveals a picture that contrasts with the judgment that they were essentially confused on the fundamental concepts and methods required to solve a strategic game such as le her . in fact , we maintain that they understood most of the aspects of the problem with clarity . there are , however , a number of important outstanding issues left unresolved in the correspondence on le her as it appears in _ essay danalyse_. let us review them briefly . it is true that the letters reveal a certain type of misunderstanding ; however , it is not conceptual confusion , but rather mutual misinterpretation due to using terms differently . an instance of this is whether it is indifferent to paul to switch or hold to a seven . on the one hand , both montmort and bernoulli claim that it is not indifferent to paul because the chances of winning are not identical . on the other hand , waldegrave claims that it is indifferent , and the reason for that seems to be that neither pure strategy dominates the other in probability . another instance of this is the disagreement they appear to have on the existence of a circularity in the analysis of the game . montmort and waldegrave assert that there is a vicious circle that prevents one from establishing a maxim ; the circle they discuss , however , is really a regression _ ad infinitum _ , that is , to establish a maxim , we always need to go one step further in the `` @xmath14 must know what @xmath15 does '' loop ( bernoulli agrees with this point ) . however , bernoulli claims that there is a circle in waldegrave s argument , in the sense that either his argument is contradictory or a _ petitio principii _ ( but bernoulli is not considering randomizing strategies at this point ) . again , they are only contradicting each other in the wording , not in the idea . finally , a third instance is that montmort and waldegrave claim that the solution of the game is impossible , whereas bernoulli does not . here again , they disagree on what it means to `` solve '' the game le her . bernoulli claims that the solution is the strategy that guarantees the best minimal gain  what we would call a minimax solution  and that as such there is a solution . however , despite understanding this `` solution concept , '' montmort and waldegrave refuse to affirm that it `` solves '' the game , since there are situations in which it might not be the best rule to follow , namely , if a player is weak and can be taken advantage of . clearly , the concept of solution they have in mind differs from the minimax concept of solution . this latter concept , in addition to the probability of gain with a pure strategy and the probability allocation required to form mixed strategies , requires that we know the probability that a player will play an inferior strategy . but , they assert , this can not be analyzed by calculations , so the game can not be solved . this being said , there are a number of things that are said that suggest a certain level of confusion at a conceptual level . the two most important are these . first , bernoulli appears to have some difficulty with the relation between the knowledge of the players and the probabilities involved in mixing strategies . his circularity objection to waldegrave is awkward and somewhat mystifying . moreover , his argument that , if we allow randomized strategies with black and white tokens , it must be because neither player knows what the other player will do , and that as a result the only acceptable probability allocation of @xmath16 is problematic . this kind of mistaken argument has been repeated over the centuries by some of the greatest minds in probability , statistics and game theory . second , montmort understands very well the idea of randomizing strategies , but he nonetheless claims that there is no optimal probability allocation that can be calculated . this claim , however , was made before consulting waldegrave s letter in which he reveals the optimal probability . referring to a letter from bernoulli to montmort dated february 20 , 1714 , @xcite , in his treatment of le her , mentions only that bernoulli accepted waldegrave s solution to the problem . however , bernoulli had other things to say about le her in that same letter . henny also refers to a letter of january 9 , 1715 , from waldegrave to bernoulli in which waldegrave seemingly admits to bernoulli that he does not have the mathematical skills to actually prove his results . what henny leaves out is that the letter was written in reply to a detailed criticism of the solutions to le her that bernoulli had sent earlier to montmort . after some personal news and apologies for not writing sooner , in his letter of february 20 , 1714 , to , bernoulli initially thanks montmort for correcting , editing and making clearer his letters that montmort had printed in _ essay danalyse_. then follows the discussion of le her that @xcite only briefly mentions . initially , bernoulli suggests that the controversy is essentially over :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ concerning le her , i seem to have foreseen that in the end we would all be right . however , i congratulate mr . de waldegrave who has the final decision on this question , and i willfully grant him the honor of closing this affair  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    despite this , bernoulli still claims that he disagrees on a few minor points , and these point directly to the outstanding issues we mentioned above . the main concern is the relation between `` establishing a maxim '' and solving the problem of le her posed by montmort in his book . bernoulli states :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ one can establish a maxim and propose a rule to conduct one s game , without following it all the time . we sometimes play badly on purpose , to deceive the opponent , and that is what can not be decided in such questions , when one should make a mistake on purpose . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    this point was raised before by montmort and waldegrave , but they do not consider that such a play would be necessarily a mistake . whether or not this kind of play is a mistake , we saw that from the same consideration , montmort and waldegrave conclude that solving the problem is impossible . however , bernoulli now phrases things more carefully :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ mr . de waldegrave wrongs me on p. 410 by claiming that i once said that the lot of paul is to that of pierre as @xmath32 . if you carefully read my letter from oct 10 , 1711 , you will find that i did not say it absolute and without restriction . i beg you to consider those words : once we have determined or rather supposed what are the cards to which the players will hold , etc . and the following words . you will see that i there supposed that the players want to hold to a fixed and determined card , and indeed i had not thought about the way of tokens , which , as mr . de waldegrave said , is not among the ordinary rules of the game . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    bernoulli essentially says that he was misinterpreted and that he only computed the best odds of winning with a pure strategy , not that he established what a player should do in an actual game . moreover , if we grant his supposition , then he has found the most advantageous maxim . after this correction , bernoulli thinks the discussion is over , saying , `` we are thus all agreeing , and we have made peace ; _ canamus receptui _ [ sing retreat ] . ''    in his response to bernoulli , dated march 24 , 1714 , montmort concurs by writing , `` i am quite pleased that we are all together by and large agreeing . '' in this letter montmort claims that he disagreed with bernoulli on some aspect of the corrected interpretation of his position , but he leaves it to a later letter to explain . however , in his next letter to bernoulli , november 21 , 1714 , montmort does little to clarify . he says , `` if it is ever permitted to say to two persons maintaining contradictory claims that they are both right , it is assuredly at this occasion in our dispute . '' montmort emphasizes that what he seeks is the correct advice that should be given to the players , but the discussion does not go much further .    on august 15 , 1714 , montmort sent a letter to bernoulli containing a two - page `` supplement '' that reignites the debate . he makes six points . first , he claims that telling paul always to switch with a seven is bad advice , since his minimum lot is then 2828 . second , that it would be better advice to tell him to do whatever he pleases with a seven , so that he can look at both options indifferently . third , we can not say that this would be the best advice either , for knowing that , pierre would switch with an eight , in which case paul should certainly have held on to a seven . this leads to a vicious circle . fourth , if we admit the way of tokens , the best advice that he knows is to tell paul to have the ratio @xmath33 for switching with a seven . but even then , he does not think that we can demonstrate that it is the best advice . fifth , he claims that it is impossible at this game to determine the lot of paul , because one can not determine what manner of playing is the most advantageous to each player , even when we admit a randomized strategy . this point makes explicit for the first time montmort s ( and presumably waldegrave s ) idea that you can only claim that you have found the lot of a player ( which is what montmort s problem in _ essay danalyse _ demanded ) if we can determine what is the best way to play . moreover , determining the best way to play demands knowing more than the optimal token ratio for the randomized strategy . he adds that , of course , some methods of playing are better than others , as informed by the chances that have previously been calculated . he concludes , sixth , that he would not know what advice to give paul if he had to . this letter sharpens the debate , in that it makes explicit the connection between `` solving '' a game and giving advice for play in actual situations .    in a long letter to montmort dated august 28 , 1714 , along with a `` supplement '' dated november 1 , 1714 , bernoulli replies to montmort point by point . he asks montmort a question that is meant to dismiss his argument :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ if , admitting the way of tokens , the option of 3 to 5 for paul to switch with a seven is the best you know , why do you want to give paul other advice in article 6 ? it suffices for paul to follow the best maxim that he could know . it is not enough to claim that there is still a circle despite my reasons , one must fight my reasons . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    and he continues : `` it is not impossible at this game to determine the lot of paul . '' to counter montmort s previous argument , he once again insists that either paul knows what pierre will do , in which case his maxim is clear , or he does not , in which case paul should use the probability @xmath16 in the randomized strategy to determine what to do . as he admits , this is the exact same position he had at the beginning of the discussion , supported by the exact same argument . thus , it seems that bernoulli has missed the point montmort made explicit in his august 15 letter . it is at this point that waldegrave reenters the debate at montmort s request . in a letter dated january 9 , 1715 , waldegrave reiterates the six points that montmort had laid out for bernoulli in his letter of august 15 . for each of the six points , waldegrave s arguments are longer and more detailed than what montmort had previously given . it is not until march 22 , 1715 , that montmort replies to bernoulli on this dispute . it is part of a very long letter that also contains the main topic for their further correspondence , infinite series . in this letter , montmort writes once again about his views . they are the same as what we have seen already . however , montmort stresses that a lot of what remains under discussion is based on inconsistent terminology and . in essence , he believes that the outstanding disagreements are only apparent contradictions . nonetheless , he introduces one more element to clearly his view . he distinguishes between the advice that he would put in print , or give to paul publicly , and the advice he would give so that only paul hears it . montmort claims that , for the former , he would choose the mixed strategy with @xmath24 and @xmath25 , since it is the one that demonstrably brings about the lesser prejudice . however , he explains that , in practice , if paul is playing against an ordinary player and not a mathematician , he would quietly give different advice that could allow paul to take advantage of his opponent s weakness . as he explains , the objective of this sort of analysis is not only to provide a maxim to otherwise ignorant players , but also to warn them about the potential advantages of using finesse . however , this latter part is not possible to establish , and it is in this sense that there is no possible solution to this problem . the next letter , sent by bernoulli to montmort on may 4 , 1715 , disregards montmort s nuance . to begin , bernoulli `` is forced to admit that he does not precisely know on what point [ they ] contradict each other . '' nonetheless , bernoulli explains that , in his view , the distinction between public and private advice , the possibility of using finesse , or something similar , does not alter the fact that @xmath24 and @xmath25 is the best solution , and that it determines the lot of paul ( so that not only is the game solvable , but it is indeed solved ) .    despite bernoulli s explanation , montmort s next letter , dated june 8 , 1715 , once again reiterates that `` you have badly solved the proposed question , or you have not solved it at all . '' he makes explicit what he takes the proposed question to be :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the question is and has always been to know whether we can establish the lots and as a result the advantage of playing first under the supposition not that pierre and paul follow this or that maxim ( this would have no utility , no difficulty ) , but that both of them having the same skills , each follow the conduct that is the most advantageous . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    montmort then says that this dispute is beginning to bore him . he considers that furthering it will not make them learn anything new and that in the end the dispute must be about some other thing . our presentation of the correspondence makes it clear that they are using different concepts of solution ; bernoulli s in essence is the concept of the minimax solution , whereas montmort s further depends on the probability of imperfect play ( i.e. , on the skill level of the players ) .    around this time , montmort s interest shifts from probability and its applications to infinite series . in fact , most of the remaining correspondence with bernoulli turns to that topic . at the same time , montmort began an extensive correspondence with brook taylor , also mainly on infinite series ( st . john s college library , cambridge , taylorb / e4 ) . although the dispute with bernoulli seems to have petered out , montmort was not yet done with it . in a letter dated july 4 , 1716 , montmort asked taylor to examine his dispute with bernoulli about le her and to express his opinion on who was right . he referred taylor only to the correspondence that appears in _ essay danalyse_. taylor apparently wrote back but with the wrong impression about what montmort wanted . montmort replied to taylor on august 4 , 1716 , that he did not want any new research into the problem but only to examine , at his leisure , which of bernoulli or montmort was right . in a letter to taylor dated november 10 , 1717 , montmort thanked taylor for his opinion on the dispute and concluded the letter by saying that waldegrave would write him about le her as well as another game . unfortunately , neither taylor s reply expressing his opinion nor waldegrave s letter to taylor are extant . compared to the discussion of le her , the remaining discussion in the post-1713 correspondence with regard to probability problems is relatively minor . for example , after the remarks on le her that bernoulli made in his letter of february 20 , 1714 , to montmort , bernoulli comments that he thinks there is an error in montmort s solution to a problem related to the jeu du petit palet in _ essay danalyse_. he asks montmort to check his solution . the problem appears to be problme iv in montmort ( @xcite ) , page 254 . the jeu du petit palet is a game in which players toss coins or flat stones ( the `` palets '' ) toward a target set on the ground or a table . the player with the most coins or stones on the target wins . the english equivalent game is called chuck - farthing or chuck - penny . what takes up much of the discussion , other than le her , is news about abraham de moivre s work . de moivre corresponded with both montmort and bernoulli until about 1715 when he ceased corresponding with either of them . prior to this discussion , bernoulli had sent de moivre a general solution to the problem of the pool on december 30 , 1713 ( @xcite , pages 106107 ) . a report on de moivre s activities in probability takes up part of a letter from bernoulli to montmort dated april 4 , 1714 . bernoulli mentions that de moivre has sent him a long letter with reports of new solutions that will appear in a much expanded version of his treatise _ de mensura sortis _ ( de moivre , @xcite ) . de moivre s new work , which was entitled _ the doctrine of chances _ , did not appear until 1718 ( de moivre , @xcite ) . no details are given to montmort other than that de moivre has made inroads in three areas . first , de moivre used his own method for the solution of the problem of the pool to generalize it to more than three players . second , he developed a new kind of algebra to solve probability problems . finally , bernoulli reports that de moivre considered that nearly all problems in probability can be reduced to series summations . not only did de moivre report that he had generalized the problem of the pool , but he also sent bernoulli his solution to the problem . at the time of his writing to montmort , bernoulli had not read the solution and did not pass the solution on to montmort . the new algebra is probably the one that de moivre developed for finding probabilities of compound events . see , for example , hald [ ( @xcite ) , pages 336338 ] for a modern discussion of this topic . this part of the letter ends with what might be interpreted as a nasty comment about de moivre :    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i will share here in confidence what he wrote to me concerning you . here is what he told me about your comments that i had sent him . ` i can not stop myself etc . our society etc . i just received etc . kind [ regards ] . ' after the letter i find written there these words : ` in a sense , ' that made me laugh . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _    it is difficult to know what exactly bernoulli is saying here . it appears that he sent de moivre montmort s severe criticism of _ de mensura sortis _ that montmort published in _ essay danalyse _ ( @xcite , pages 363369 ) .    later that month , montmort reported back to bernoulli that he received a very polite and fair letter from de moivre in which de moivre announced that he had found a new solution to the problem of the duration of play . see bellhouse [ ( @xcite ) , pages 111114 ] for a discussion of the publication of this solution . de moivre sent reports about more of his results in probability to montmort and montmort sent on a pr ' ecis of these results to bernoulli in a letter dated august 15 , 1714 . many of the results that montmort mentions found their way into _ the doctrine of chances _ , including what is called woodcock s problem discussed in bellhouse [ ( @xcite ) , pages 125126 ] .        on august 28 , 1714 , bernoulli finally wrote to montmort enclosing a copy of de moivre s general solution to the problem of the pool . in the letter , bernoulli asks montmort to tell him what he thinks of the solution . he further states that it appears that de moivre is using bernoulli s approach to the solution for three and four players that appears in _ essay danalyse _ ( @xcite , pages 380387 ) . at the same time he is using an analytical approach rather than infinite series ( de moivre actually used a recursive method for his general solution ) . montmort replied on march 22 , 1715 , that he agrees with bernoulli s assessment . on returning from a trip to england , montmort reported to bernoulli in a letter dated june 8 , 1715 , that one of bernoulli s solutions to the problem of the pool had just been printed in the _ philosophical transactions _ ( bernoulli , @xcite ) . bernoulli had sent de moivre two solutions ; de moivre claimed he had found an error in the first solution . many in the past have tried unsuccessfully to identify the waldegrave who solved the problem of le her and who suggested the problem of the pool , often called waldegrave s problem . @xcite reviewed these attempts at identification and narrowed the field down to charles , edward or francis waldegrave , the three brothers of henry waldegrave , 1st baron waldegrave . bellhouse argued for charles waldegrave , but in view of new information his choice was incorrect . key to the proper identification is that several waldegraves  siblings , cousins and at least one uncle of henry  followed king james ii into exile in france after james was deposed in 1688 . the proper identification of the waldegrave of interest may be found in legal papers in the archive nationales de france in conjunction with a letter from waldegrave to nicolaus bernoulli ; the letter to bernoulli is signed only `` waldegrave '' and is the only known letter in waldegrave s hand that is extant ( universittsbibliothek basel l ia 22 , nr . other waldegrave signatures to compare to the one on bernoulli s letter can be found on various legal documents , two in france ( archives nationales de france mc / et / xvii/486 and 514 ) and one in england ( house of lords record office hl / po / jo/10/1/439/481 ) . see figure  [ table2 ] . from the signatures , it is obvious that francis is the waldegrave of interest . from these records , it is also apparent that charles waldegrave handled the family s affairs in england while francis waldegrave took charge of them in france . what little is known of the life of francis waldegrave comes mostly from montmort s correspondence with brook taylor and nicolaus bernoulli . montmort reported to taylor one of waldegrave s political activities . waldegrave was planning to take part in the jacobite uprising in england in 1715 . he was to be part of an invasion force led by the son of james ii , james stuart . the uprising in england fizzled out , james stuart remained in france and waldegrave fell ill just prior to the time when the planned invasion was to occur . montmort called waldegrave s illness apoplexy ; it was probably a stroke . from time to time , montmort commented to taylor and bernoulli about waldegrave s illness , recovery and setbacks . at one point , for a cure or a rest , waldegrave took the waters at a spa in france . he also spent time at montmort s chateau . though ill , he was alive in france in 1719 when montmort died so that the flow of information to bernoulli and taylor about waldegrave stopped . presumably , waldegrave died in france . how waldegrave obtained his mathematical training is unknown . in whatever way he was educated , he was an adept amateur mathematician . this is contrary to henny s interpretation of waldegrave s skills . for example , henny [ ( @xcite ) , page 502 ] claims that waldegrave did not have the mathematical skills to work out a general method of calculation in le her . on the contrary , there is a hint of the fairly high level of waldegrave s mathematical abilities in a letter from montmort to bernoulli dated march 24 , 1714 . there montmort says that he is getting waldegrave to read lhpital s ( @xcite ) calculus book _ analyse des infiniment petits _ and that waldegrave has a natural aptitude for mathematics .    at the time that montmort was sending _ essay danalyse _ to his publisher , francis waldegrave was living in rue princesse near glise saint - sulpice in paris . in modern paris , it is a @xmath34 kilometer walk to montmort s publisher in rue galande . in section  [ sec1 ] it was mentioned that montmort was staying only @xmath35 meters from his publisher . this was not the only time that montmort enlisted a colleague to take on some of the tedious parts of getting results to print . after montmort sent brook taylor a number of theorems about infinite series , they decided that the results should be published in the royal society s _ philosophical transactions _ in a letter dated june 15 , 1717 , montmort gave taylor complete editorial control over the paper that included having taylor translate the results from french into latin ( st . john s college library , cambridge taylorb / e4 ) . taylor replied august 9 , 1717 , saying that he had made many changes and corrections to the paper ( st . john s college library , cambridge , taylorb / e5 ) . the unpublished letters between bernoulli and montmort reveal a much more complex story than either @xcite or @xcite have described . the entire group  bernoulli , montmort and waldegrave  were for the most part clear about the issues at the conceptual level . in the end it came down to a disagreement about what it meant to solve a problem . further , henny recognized many modern game theory concepts , but we show that the group s understanding of the modern notions is deeper than what henny realized .    apart from the technical and conceptual aspects of le her and other probability problems , we also get a glimpse into the social side of a rich amateur mathematician at work . montmort was a good mathematician , but mathematics was his hobby and at times he did not have time to pursue his hobby . there is a bit of quid pro quo in his relationships with bernoulli , taylor and waldegrave . montmort acquires some status through his connections to artists , philosophers and scientists . he can impose on his scientific friends to do some of the more menial work for him in getting his research to print . on the other side , his scientific friends enjoy his hospitality , his gifts and the benefits of any political and scientific connections that he may have .    traditionally , the mixed strategy solution with @xmath24 and @xmath25 for le her has been attributed to waldegrave . it certainly appears to be the correct attribution based on the correspondence in the second edition of _ essay danalyse_. however , in the long letter from montmort to bernoulli dated march 22 , 1715 , that covers discussions of le her , de moivre and other topics , montmort appears to claim priority of solution . as part of the discussion of le her , he says , `` although i first found the determination of the numbers @xmath20 and @xmath21 , @xmath22 and @xmath23  '' montmort s suggestion of priority could have come about as a result of a conversation between waldegrave and montmort , with waldegrave putting pen to paper . this illustrates fasolt s ( @xcite ) claims about the limits of history . our data from the past is what has been written , not what has been spoken . further , we can never know the tone behind what was written , such as bernoulli s apparently nasty comments to montmort about de moivre in his letter of april 14 , 1714 . instead of coming up in conservation , montmort may be claiming priority because he found the general formula in @xmath20 , @xmath21 , @xmath22 and @xmath23 ; the numbers were only a special case . or it could be something else . like le her itself , depending on how the problem is approached , the assignment of priority is a problem with no solution . we would like to thank dr . fritz nagel of universitt basel for giving us access to the correspondence between nicolaus bernoulli and pierre rmond de montmort . we also thank kathryn mckee and jonathan harrison of st . john s college library , cambridge , for providing us with copies of the correspondence between brook taylor and montmort . the originals of the letters of bernoulli , montmort and waldgrave are in universittsbibliothek basel . the letters from montmort to bernoulli are catalogued handschriften l ia 22:2 nr.187206 and from bernoulli to montmort are l ia 21:2 bl.209275 . the letter from bernoulli to waldegrave is catalogued l ia 21:2 bl.229v232r and the letter from waldegrave to bernoulli is l ia 22 , nr . 261 . when referencing these letters , we have to do so by the date , writer and recipient , rather than the catalog numbers
Abstract:

Answer: part v of the second edition of pierre rmond de montmort s _ essay danalyse sur les jeux de hazard _ published in 1713 contains correspondence on probability problems between montmort and nicolaus bernoulli . this correspondence begins in 1710 . the last published letter , dated november 15 , 1713 , is from montmort to nicolaus bernoulli . there is some discussion of the strategy of play in the card game le her and a bit of news that montmort s friend waldegrave in paris was going to take care of the printing of the book . from earlier correspondence between bernoulli and montmort , it is apparent that waldegrave had also analyzed le her and had come up with a mixed strategy as a solution . he had also suggested working on the `` problem of the pool , '' or what is often called waldegrave s problem . the universittsbibliothek basel contains an additional forty - two letters between bernoulli and montmort written after 1713 , as well as two letters between bernoulli and waldegrave . the letters are all in french , and here we provide translations of key passages . the trio continued to discuss probability problems , particularly le her which was still under discussion when the _ essay danalyse _ went to print . we describe the probability content of this body of correspondence and put it in its historical context . we also provide a proper identification of waldegrave based on manuscripts in the archives nationales de france in paris .