On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:34 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:14 PM Devon McCormick <[email protected]> wrote: > > The problem is that the paper tries to relate a pure mathematical theory, > > P≠NP, to a real-world phenomenon that is not mathematics. It's basically > > nonsense. > > By this logic, physics is nonsense.
Note: I am not trying to say that economics has the same reproducibility as physics. But physics routinely uses mathematical theory to present ideas about "real-world phenomenon that are not mathematics". And, for that matter, economics routinely uses mathematical theory to present "ideas about real-world phenomenon that are not mathematics". Of course, presenting ideas that way doesn't automatically make the ideas be correct, but it also doesn't automatically make them nonsense. You have to judge based on what's being said and on what's being described and what your observations have been. In the case of the efficient market hypothesis, it turns out that the math involved can't hold for the general case. It can make sense for a specific focus on a specific good or service and a short period of time, especially in highly regulated contexts. But it invariably falls apart in the long run, and for the general case. This also doesn't make all of economics incorrect. Many other principles still hold. But it does mean that you probably shouldn't bet in favor of the EMH - or anything based on it - over the long term. Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
