On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:54 AM Donna Y <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that I found flaws in the paper (how he used Turing > reduction, whether he properly described market orders as a Turing > machine and a Language accepted by such TM, other reasoning in his > argument. It is a bit ridiculous that he proposes a type of order > that doesn’t exist in the historic record. He also assumes that EMH > is a N-complete problem, and he tries to demonstrate that markets > are not efficient without a definition of efficient markets that > is testable…)
The reason you won't see orders like that in the historic record is that regulations on the market have not allowed orders of that sort. So if that is the nature of the flaw we find in his reasoning, what we would essentially be saying is that if EMH is valid, EMH depends on market regulations to remain valid. And this seems like an at least somewhat sensible position, since regulations limit or eliminate possibilities, and thus can eliminate or reduce the sort of exponential growth in possibilities that he was describing. In other words, market regulations eliminate NP-Completeness (among other things). That said, it's also worth noting that mathematics is not science. And it's science which concerns itself with testability, not math (outside of specific specializations, such as probability and statistics, which attempt to model tests, with varying degrees of success). Thanks, -- Raul > > If any of my suspicions are true then his argument would be proven false. > > It is amazing how much you can learn by investigating claims even if the > claims prove to be false. > > Many thanks, > > Donna Y > [email protected] > > > > On Aug 30, 2019, at 11:31 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:25 AM Donna Y <[email protected]> wrote: > >> arXiv is where Maymin’s paper resides—thus it is not recognized as a proof > >> of P vs NP > > > > Also, there's a mathematical distinction between "hasn't been proven, > > despite tremendous effort" and "has been proven false" which is > > difficult to express concisely. > > > > In colloquial english, the expressions we use to describe "hasn't been > > proven despite tremendous effort" seem close to "hasn't been proven > > because no one took it seriously", despite the obvious differences. > > And, both of them we can and often do treat as "probably wrong", > > though quantifying the associated probability tends to be wasted > > effort. > > > > Or: even if his paper were published in a prestigious mathematical > > journal, it still wouldn't be proof of P vs NP. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Raul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
