The issue of whether the assumptions made in economics or any other
science are "reasonable" depends upon one's philosophy of science. If
"reasonable" is taken to mean realistic or plausible then the answer is no.
Almost all models in Econ are set up as constrained maximization problems,
and i
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, john hull wrote:
> Newtonian physics. However, if preferences are
> constant over time, then the conservation rule should
> be satisfied, right? I think that is my weakest link.
Not quite. The "conservation rule" Mirowski talks about
is the same beast as the integrabili
Walt Warnick wrote:
>... the business cycle behaves strikingly like an automatic control
>system that has a positive feedback loop and damping. ...
>The parallel goes further. ... a stable automatic control system involving
>continuous feedback can become unstable if that same feedback is, instead
Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mathematical assumptions (Physics & Economics)
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I
appreciate them very much! I just re-read the rules
for the armchair mailing list, and I hope this is not
too methodologic
As an economist who was once a physicist, I have to say that
there is quite a lot of difference between the kinds of
math economics and physics typically use. Sure, they both
use calculus, but beyond that the similarities are scarce.
Differential equations across space and time dominate physics,
ics is bowdlerised
> > nineteenth century physics."
> > The second part of his argument is that this is
> not
> > reasonable.
> >
> > The article was fun, whatever one may think of the
> > conclusions. Apparently,
> > this is a major theme of Mirowsk
tly,
> this is a major theme of Mirowski. I gather that
> he's written on this
> subject elsewhere too. And been strongly criticised
> by others, of course.
>
> Ole
>
> At 09:25 11.02.2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >I once heard about a
by a physcist who
>juxtaposed the mathematical assumptions in economics
>with the mathematical assumptions in physics.
>Evidently the author found the assumptions in
>economics to be quite reasonable. I've never been
>able to locate it. Is anybody familiar with
