Donna asserted: > > > In mathematics, one way to disprove a theorem is to show that is leads to a contradiction—thus the examples I mentioned that contradict EMH.
Raul confirmed: > > Yes. I noticed: > Maybe I am completely mistaken and you both have just shown us an irrefutable proof that the markets are inefficient and the paper undoubtedly proves that, > > Markets are efficient if and only if P = NP > > then you have both proved P ≠ NP; the only remaining question is how will you both split the $1,000,000.00? Just to clarify, regarding mathematical proofs, the one who puts the last piece of the puzzle in place gets the credit. No worries though, I think, as Perelman does as well, that this is a simpleminded custom and following his lead, I would decline the prize. The $1M is all yours to enjoy. On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 4:59 PM Jose Mario Quintana < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Jose makes a good point though—if the author was trying to disprove > > > efficient market hypothesis—then proving the weakest form to be false > > > implies all forms are false. > > > > But, technically, the author didn't prove EMH false -- he outlined an > > equivalence between EMH and the knapsack problem. > > If one can show that the markets are probably not weak efficient then one can state that "the markets are probably not efficient" (in any form) as the author states in the abstract of his paper. > > > In other words if we could solve problems whose complexity grows > > exponentially, then EMH would be true. Since we can't, we can at least > > classify EMH as not always being useful in the general case. > > Clarify why "Since we can't," then "we can at least classify EMH as not always being useful in the general case" and what your statement means, in particular, "being useful" (if you can). > > > Actually, he was talking about offering contract terms whose conditions > > would be met by the problem solution. > > > > But his point was that it's not reasonable to expect that the market would > > be able to solve such things. > > > > So far *if* the (presumably bug-free) program would fail to solve 3-SAT problems in La La Land then some markets would not be efficient in the strong or semi-strong sense. In other words, so far, the alleged strong or semi-strong inefficiency *might* only be falsified in Lala Land. > > > > In mathematics, one way to disprove a theorem is to show that is leads to a contradiction—thus the examples I mentioned that contradict EMH. > > > > > Yes. > > Maybe I am completely mistaken and you both have just shown us an irrefutable proof that the markets are inefficient and the paper undoubtedly proves that, > > Markets are efficient if and only if P = NP > > then you have both proved P ≠ NP; the only remaining question is how will you both split the $1,000,000.00? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
