No where in the definition of efficient markets does it say they are not efficient if they can’t solve SAT problems.
Fama’s idea of prices reflecting all information takes no account of the price mechanism. All corollaries of the hypothesis were actually derived by saying price changes were a random walk. Later he disavowed that was part of his theorem. Donna Y dy...@sympatico.ca > On Sep 14, 2019, at 12:00 AM, Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:33 PM Donna Y <dy...@sympatico.ca> wrote: >> There are all kinds of real world considerations ignored by the paper with >> the "program the market” idea. > > Neglected -- bringing them up does not detract from the point made by the > paper. > > His *point* was that the market is not a viable SAT-3 solver. So every > issue which illustrates that the market is not a good SAT-3 solver > simply underlines his point. > > If the market was efficient, even weakly efficient, it would be a > viable SAT-3 solver. Not a zero-cost SAT-3 solver, but it would > *work*. Since the market does not work that way, the characteristics > of the market which have been attributed to "market efficiency" must > have other cause(s). > > And, every issue we raise which shows that the market is not a good > SAT-3 solver can be taken as an argument that the market is not > efficient. (Perhaps overstated, because there are also mapping issues, > but this is the gist of what's going on here.) > > 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
