Raul wrote:
> Let's say we've got a relatively small expression, with only 50
> variables. And, let's say we express that in terms of SAT-3, with
So, are you afraid that an actual market could solve the example that the
author was entertaining and one would have to go to 50 variables? Why are
you so shy then? Let us just consider, for instance, Ackermann(1000,1000)
variables and be done with that (in la-la land, of course).
> You made the claim that what you call "circuit breaker" regulations
Do I call them that? Did you read the link that you posted? It starts as,
17 CFR ยง 242.201 - Circuit breaker.
> would not be relevant in the context of using the market as a SAT-3
> problem solver.
>
> I feel that that claim was bogus, because a typical SAT-3 expression
> will involve many interdependent clauses.
Nah, you are just claiming I claimed that. (What is new?)
> > No? Then hurry up, program the market and run it, executing suitable
OCO
> > orders as necessary, before the restless regulators storm TD's
facilities
> > and shut down their WebBroker platform,
>
> This suggests to me that you also did not understand the reasoning
> expressed in the paper.
This suggests to me that you might have just a tiny little bit of
difficulty detecting sarcasm.
> Worse, since there are regulations (which the author of the paper
> probably wasn't aware of) which would prevent the "market programming"
> from functioning, the likelihood of payout plummets. Now, maybe -- as
> you seem to have suggested -- those regulations would not be enforced.
Shh! (Let us keep it a secret, the restless regulators might find out
about TD's WebBroker OCO orders.)
After reciting a litany of arguments apparently you have convinced yourself
that this is a la-la market programming. Congratulations!
Earlier in this thread, I wrote,
> In other words, so far, the alleged strong or semi-strong inefficiency
*might* only be falsified in Lala Land.
and Raul also wrote:
> It does suggest that EMH would have implications about the nature of
> trading. But its central argument is that is the market were efficient
that
> we could expect the market to have problem solving properties which it
> doesn't have.
which now can be [edited] as,
> It does suggest that EMH would have [la-la] implications about the nature
of
> [la-la] trading. But its central argument is that is the [la-la] market
were [la-la] efficient that
> we could [la-la] expect the [la-la] market to [la-la] have [la-la]
problem solving properties which it
> [la-la] doesn't [or la-la does] have.
Raul wrote,
> That would take us from essentially no chance of payout to an
> exceedingly infinitesimal chance of payout.
>
> Thanks, but no thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
Another one (that does not beat a market and instead) bites the dust!
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:56 AM Raul Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:10 PM Jose Mario Quintana
> wrote:
> > Raul also wrote:
> > > ((Honestly, though, I am surprised that you were not already aware of
> > > this aspect of SAT-3. How could SAT-3 have an equivalence to SAT-n
> > > without multiple clauses?))
> >
> > :D I do not recall stating anything about, or even mentioning, a k-SAT
> > problem, at all. Do you? I do remember quoting from the paper which
> > mentions only the 3-SAT problem; see below. (Do not blame me, I am just
> > the messenger.)
>
> Let's try this again:
>
> Let's say we've got a relatively small expression, with only 50
> variables. And, let's say we express that in terms of SAT-3, with
> three variables per clause. Do you honestly believe that there would
> only be one clause (only one order, in the market representation)? Do
> you have reason to believe that the clauses would be independent of
> each other (which would free us from regulations against
> interdependent orders)? If so, could you give an example of how this
> could work?
>
> > Is the forum's number one fan of the "Markets are efficient if and only
if
> > P = NP" paper now trying to attack it? If so, then maybe this is an
> > indication that the poor dead horse has been beaten long enough.
>
> You made the claim that what you call "circuit breaker" regulations
> would not be relevant in the context of using the market as a SAT-3
> problem solver.
>
> I feel that that claim was bogus, because a typical SAT-3 expression
> will involve many interdependent clauses.
>
> ...
>
> I it's pretty clear that a SAT-3 solver involves many interdependent
clauses
>
> ...
>
> Do you see why I think that this regulatory issue is significant? Do I
> need to keep restating the point until I find a way of expressing
> this, which you can understand?
>
> Or do you sincerely think that SAT-3 solvers don't involve
> interdependent clauses?
>
> > No? Then hurry up, program the market and run it, executing suitable
OCO
> > orders as necessary, before the restless regulators storm TD's
facilities
> > and shut down their WebBroker platform,
>
> This suggests to me
