Vow to share in a wedding

When two people vow to share all their wealth, the implications may not be what they intended. Logically it could mean that they give away one third of their wealth to the other party.

---

In a wedding, the bridegroom vowed:

• “I vow to share everything with you.”

The bride vowed the same.
Language is ambiguous, as always, but it is reasonable to assume that the intended meaning to be as follows:

• “I’ll equally share with you everything in my name, including everything that I may receive in the future, until the end of this marriage.”

However, there is a problem with this interpretation. Suppose the bridegroom’s wealth is 1. According to the vow, half of that will go to the bride’s name. But when the bride receives that half, she will have to share half of her proceeds with the bridegroom. When the bridegroom receives that wealth, he will have to give half of that back to the bride. The series is therefore:

1 – ½ + ¼ - 1/8 + 1/16 – 1/32 + ….

This is a series with increment r = –½. Therefore the series should be evaluated to (1/ (1-r)), which is 1/(1-(-½) = 2/3.

In other words, the bridegroom will give one third of his wealth to the bride, and receive one third of the bride’s wealth.

Here is a concrete example:
If the bridegroom has a wealth of £3,000, and the bride has a wealth of £3,000,000, then the intended meaning of the vow is that the couple will each have 1,501,500 to their name after the marriage. But the logical meaning of the vows, according to the above interpretation, is that the husband will have £1,002,000 to his name, and the bride will have £2,001,000 to her name.

I wonder if this argument stands in court.

The vow should be changed if it were to achieve the intended meaning. Both sides must say:

• “I vow to (equally) share everything in my name with you, but not including what you share with me.”

This will break the recursion. But it could be seen to be a bit mean (though it is the opposite), wouldn’t it?


[End]