My recollection, there, was that I was late to decide that I was going
to attend that meeting, and was not able to pick up a plane ticket.
Anyways, I took a bus ride, instead, and got there on little sleep. I
threw together a quick talk, but I did not save my notes for that
meeting -- if there's no recording or transcript, it's mostly lost at
this point.
I do remember doing a riff on the DRY principle and the phases of
optimization. Something like:
"Don't Repeat Yourself."
"Repeat Yourself."
"Don't."
("Don't" is probably good generic advice on the subject of
optimization - both initially (don't optimize) and when you get into
it (optimization is quite often about removing unnecessary
operations).)
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:54 PM 'robert therriault' via Chat
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Pepe,
>
> Raul is probably the one to ask about that, but I will jump in as I was there
> as well (I was told it was a shame that you were not, as I would have enjoyed
> meeting you). As I remember Raul did not use slides, but from my notes one of
> the topics that he discussed was exchange systems. His examples were gift,
> barter, bitcoin and speculation on what the next exchange system may look
> like. That is the limit of detail on my notes.
>
> Cheers, bob
>
> > On Sep 5, 2019, at 3:19 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> From that amuse bouche:
> >>> The result of this paper is that these two questions are linked
> >>
> >> No such thing was proven or even shown to be plausible.
> >>
> >
> > Right (as far as I can see).
> >
> > By the way, your recollection was correct. I have been puzzled by all the
> > fuzz about this famous (or infamous) paper; so, I did a bit of searching:
> >
> > Dan mentioned the paper seven years ago and he seemed to be on board; he
> > ended his post with,
> >
> > "Thanks to Raul for bringing this to my attention on Twitter (by retweeting
> > Charles Stross, @cstross)"
> >
> > ( see, http://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/chat/2012-October/004942.html ).
> >
> > I vaguely recall someone mentioning that Raul discussed it at the J
> > Conference 2014. I tried, unsuccessfully, to find his slides in the Journal
> > of J (JoJ) because I do respect a lot his J coding (most of it, anyway).
> > According to the program you were there as well. Do you recall anything
> > about that talk?
> >
> > Maybe he still has some materials which he would like to share (I would
> > certainly take a look).
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:22 AM Devon McCormick <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> From that amuse bouche:
> >>> The result of this paper is that these two questions are linked
> >>
> >> No such thing was proven or even shown to be plausible.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:47 PM Donna Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Donna Y
> >>> [email protected]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 4, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:19 PM Donna Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Evaluated weak-form EMF entails the effect of historic data—something
> >>> not available for a transaction that might be available in the future.
> >>>>
> >>>> But that information would be available in the future when the future
> >>>> becomes the present.
> >>>
> >>> According to Maymin, that might be in 20 tears—that means his suggested
> >>> method of proving P=NP couldn’t work for another 20 years.
> >>>
> >>> Why not propose a different Turing Machine and a Language it
> > accepts—there
> >>> are infinitely many. The Church-Turing thesis states that any
> > sufficiently
> >>> powerful computational model which captures the notion of algorithm is
> >>> computationally equivalent to the Turing machine.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> That said, for practical reasons (even ignoring regulations) it's not
> >>>
> >>>> possible to extract all meaning from historical data. This is
> >>>
> >>>> especially true in high monetary velocity contexts. There isn't enough
> >>>
> >>>> time to perform more than superficial calculations.
> >>>
> >>> Maymin invokes the term Bounded Rationality (coined by Herbert A. Simon.
> >>> In Models of Man) that says rational decisions are often not feasible in
> >>> practice because of the intractability of the decision problem and the
> >>> finite computational resources available for making them.
> >>>
> >>> No one is omniscient. EMH doesn't say that an efficient market price
> >>> system would make us so.
> >>>
> >>> "All meaning" isn't the sort of information Fama was claiming fair
> > prices
> >>> transmit.
> >>>
> >>> Changes in stock prices convey relevant information about the supply and
> >>> demand and expected return on company shares in a way that allows
> > people to
> >>> choose to buy, hold or sell those stocks as if they did consciously
> >>> calculate and understand factors that affected changes in value, even if
> >>> they don’t.
> >>>
> >>> A central planner needs to know about the changed value of firms in
> > order
> >>> to distribute resources appropriately, whereas individual agents in a
> > free
> >>> market are automatically encouraged to distribute their investments to
> >>> shares with improved value without having to consciously grasp why
> > prices
> >>> change.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Market regulation aim to make the market competitive and fair as
> >>>>> well as efficient. What they may want to eliminate if a loophole
> >>>>> that would allow one or more participants to drain money from other
> >>>>> participants unfairly and also undermine the primary purpose of the
> >>>>> market which is to raise capital for firms.
> >>>>
> >>>> Market regulations attempt to do so.
> >>>>
> >>>> But regulations also have limits -- including jurisdictional limits.
> >>>> This leads to fraud related issues (which, are -- practically speaking
> >>>> -- another example of market inefficiency).
> >>>
> >>> Yes there is fraud or the possibility of fraud—does that make the market
> >>> inefficient by definition. Fine, see below, it says nothing about SAT-1
> > or
> >>> the class NP.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Even if market regulations eliminate market efficiency it is
> > definitely
> >>> false that
> >>>>> market regulations eliminate NP-Completeness
> >>>>
> >>>> How [specifically] would this be false?
> >>>
> >>> In computational modeling the outputs of a computing system C are used
> > to
> >>> describe some behaviour of another system S under some conditions. The
> >>> explanation for S’s behaviour has to do with S’s properties, not with a
> >>> computation performed by the model.
> >>>
> >>> If Maymin is correct that EMH is equivalent to a specific N-complete
> >>> problem C and if he solves the NP-complete problem then that proves C
> > is in
> >>> P—it has an efficient solution. By Maymin’s proposed proof that would
> > imply
> >>> EMH was efficient.
> >>>
> >>> If he could prove C has no efficient solution then by his logic the
> > market
> >>> is not efficient. Proving C, an NP-Complete problem, has an efficient
> >>> solution proves P=NP.
> >>>
> >>> Else showing the market has regulators that make it inefficient then so
> > be
> >>> it, EMH is not efficient by definition. That does not prove anything
> > about
> >>> C or the class NP.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Economics is not mathematics—it is a social science attempting to
> >>> explain social phenomena and distribution of resources among people.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, but economics uses mathematics, and if the math being used is
> >>>> mathematically inconsistent, that means that any value in its results
> >>>> didn't come from the math.
> >>>
> >>> Yes I said that. CS and Economics use math.
> >>>
> >>> In computational explanation some behaviour of a system S is explained
> > by
> >>> a particular kind of process internal to S—a computation—and by the
> >>> properties of that computation. The mathematical description A that
> >>> specifies the evolution of S only represents what is known about the
> >>> evolution of S. Some factors that influence S’s evolution might be
> >>> unknown,
> >>>
> >>> To include everything that is known about S in A may make the
> > mathematics
> >>> analytically or computationally intractable.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Devon McCormick, CFA
> >>
> >> Quantitative Consultant
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
