From theory to practice - page 1035
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The article is of course more of a promotional one, as there are many references to the book and all sorts of comrades from universities... I don't know if it's worth ordering or not (there's already something to read)
But the main ideas are from there:
1. memory does not depend on distribution law and stationarity
2. By differentiating a process we kill memory but not non-stationarity
3. we need to look for alpha in patterns, not in Box-Jenkins series transformations
Yes. There's also a link to his more serious article - I'll read it now too.
So, I am not talking about the commercial use of this knowledge (although the truth is always good to know where you really live), but simply wanted to tell you that mathematicians (even Nobel laureates) will not improve the economy globally (which you cherish the vague hope for). Although they can certainly optimise the performance of individual corporations (in the literal sense, not in the sense of the transformations we are undergoing).
In the end, it came down to the 26 wealthiest individuals equalling the wealth of 3.8 billion people on the planet. This is the result of Nobel economists seeking to serve the public good. This is a vice of the market economy, i.e. capitalism, but unfortunately humanity could not come up with a better one.
So, I'm not talking about the commercial use of that knowledge (although it's always good to know the truth in order to understand where you really live), but I just wanted to tell you that mathematicians (even Nobel laureates) will not improve the economy globally (which you cherish the vague hope for). Although they can certainly optimise the performance of individual corporations (in the literal sense, not in the sense of the transformations we are undergoing).
Reducing the whole economy to the machinations of almighty bankers is not the truth but cynicism, which is sometimes said to be a form of naivety (any simplification is always naive).
I am not talking about improvement, but a clear trend of replacing humans with robots. For example, the approach Maxim Dmitrievsky is interested in may eventually lead to automation of all trader's work.
Reducing the whole economy to the machinations of almighty bankers is not the truth but cynicism, which is sometimes said to be a form of naivety (any simplification is always naive).
I am not talking about improvement, but a clear trend of replacing humans with robots. For example, the approach Maxim Dmitrievsky is interested in could eventually lead to automation of all trader's work.
but the main thoughts come from there:
1. memory does not depend on the law of distribution
That's what I was talking about 800 pages ago. This is a primitive and obvious fact, on the level of 2*2.
(1) Reducing the whole economy to the machinations of omnipotent bankers is not the truth, but cynicism, which is sometimes said to be a form of naivety (any simplification is always naive).
(2) I am not talking about improvement, but about the clear trend of replacing humans with robots. For example, the approach Maxim Dmitrievsky is interested in may eventually lead to automation of all trader's work.
(1) I am not reducing the entire economy to machinations of the almighty bankers, I am just trying to make you aware that they determine the global trends. And there is no cynicism and moreover no naivety in it, which, young man, as it seems to me, you suffer from.
(2) Here I agree. The trend of replacing humans with robots is obvious, but here again the same guys are directing, determining which direction of scientific development, in general, to emphasize, and which direction is better to slow down (and, moreover, which modes to fail).
In the end, it came down to the 26 wealthiest individuals equalling the wealth of 3.8 billion people on the planet. This is the result of Nobel economists seeking to serve the public good. This is a vice of the market economy, i.e. capitalism, but unfortunately humanity could not come up with a better one.
You get it right. I agree on everything, except that nothing has been invented better than capitalist economics. The planned socialist economy was, after all, better than capitalist economics.
You get it right. I agree in everything, except that the planned socialist economy was, after all, better than the economy of capitalism.
I repeat, the market economy (capitalism) is the best model for the development of society, this has been proven by the development of all countries and peoples of the planet. The law of 20/80 inherent in capitalism prevents a miracle, i.e. the general rejoicing of the system. The task of economists is to shift this 20/80 inequality just a little bit. But that is hardly possible. I myself am looking for the reason for the immutability of this law and have decided to look for the cause of it. Part of the reason is that, as consumers of goods and services, we part with our money too easily and allow the other side to get rich at our expense. Therefore, I have patented, albeit on the level of a useful idea, that sellers should interest consumers not only in an attractive price, but also in a share of the business. I called it "Operation Boomerang", which would allow everyone who has funds for personal needs, involuntarily, to participate in entrepreneurial activity.
I am not reducing the entire economy to the machinations of the almighty bankers, I am only trying to make you aware that they determine its global trends. There is no cynicism and even less naivety in that, young man, which I believe you suffer from.
My views are rather trivial. The bankers' strength is that people believe in the paper they use. Bankers alone can't create and maintain that faith. And if their paper loses value, they become powerless, as has happened many times in history.