Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Ok, as some poster mentioned, it's about understanding it, or not understanding it.
Lets analyze the opposite case: approximation of the real exponential e^x with the sin(x) or cos(x) functions.
FooPlot | Online graphing calculator and function plotter
A "brute force" approach is required. In this case the result has to be multiplied by 10 to get an approximation valid up to 10.
In practice the existence of both approximations implies that a fixed amount of exponential can be used to approximate any amount of sine, but a fixed amount of sine cannot be used to approximate any amount of exponential.
Lets analyze the opposite case: approximation of the real exponential e^x with the sin(x) or cos(x) functions.
FooPlot | Online graphing calculator and function plotter
A "brute force" approach is required. In this case the result has to be multiplied by 10 to get an approximation valid up to 10.
In practice the existence of both approximations implies that a fixed amount of exponential can be used to approximate any amount of sine, but a fixed amount of sine cannot be used to approximate any amount of exponential.
My apologies to Eva. I was simply looking at the two latest threads.Bigun said:
You cannot approximate a monotonically increasing function with a periodic function over any appreciable range. However, over small enough interval you can approximate almost anything with almost anything else, so there is no content in picking any particular approximation. You really need to drop this peculiar assertion that sin/cos are somehow like the real exponential; they are not. Therefore any 'theorem' you deduce from this false assertion is bound to be wrong.Eva said:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
When it comes to predicting the value of publicly traded stocks and options - some of the best (and best paid by the way) brains have pondered this for decades. The end result was that you are unlikely to do better than a long term average.
One chap I knew was a math whizz, was developing alogorithms for over-the-horizon radar which when you think about it could have some interesting applications. He was head hunted from a low paying tech. job by one of the big investment houses. He never looked back (pun intended).
One chap I knew was a math whizz, was developing alogorithms for over-the-horizon radar which when you think about it could have some interesting applications. He was head hunted from a low paying tech. job by one of the big investment houses. He never looked back (pun intended).
That´s the point.
There is ZERO generation of money, which is just being shuffled around.
Best case, it´s a zero sum deal, but since there are fees and expenses involved, which are paid out of the mass of money being shuffled, the end result is less money out than what was put in , so a net lose deal.
If you want to see it from an Electronics point of view, call it a "lossy network"
Yes, a few will come out better and those cases are published and idolized, most will come out from worse to much worse.
Above I mean real money, related to real stuff you can pay with it; of course more paper can be printed and thrown into the fire pit ... it does not mean nthere is more Wealth than before.
Short ago I watched a video explaining that the amount of Virtual money being shuffled around in the US Stock Exchange is way higher than the total worth/value of the US Economy
Looked reasonable, in any case the trivial proof for or against would be to exchange *all* of the aggregated shares trading value for cash
Won´t happen simply because if actually carried out, total share value can not be more than worth of all good available ... or shares should devaluate enough to make both values match ... or stuff should become 10X/20X ... whatever´s necessary so their price matches available money.
Roulette or standard gambling offer a lot of fun (for those who like it) in exchange of a small nibble of what´s being bet , and "the money is there on the table"; not much of that at the Stock Exchange Casino , specially when you "want to redeem the chips" and there´s no Casino Cashier to do that, you can only sell them to new gamblers.
So trying to predict Stock price variations, maybe can be accomplished, why not?
And a few might earn something against the great mass of unenlightened gamblers, but in principle this is a futile endeavour to me, very very similar to so called "systems to win at the Casino" .
That, IF Math suggested above actually matches gamblers Psychology and actual moves, something I won´t believe (why would I?) unless accompanied by thorough experimentation or field data analysis, NONE of that was even suggested, let alone accomplished.
Until then, it remains just a nice set of equations, which might or might not reflect outside reality.
And no, I couldn´t care less that it was proposed by so called "World Famous Economists"; "Principle of Authority" does not cut much ice compared to actual Statistical analysis of real samples, by its own it may just be another Logical Fallacy.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
When you own and operate a stock exchange it isn't much different from a Casino - the house always takes a cut, the house always wins.
In the end, stock prices are mostly a function of human behaviour (ignoring the trading bots for now) and that's something that Economists have tried to model for decades too - with fleeting success at best despite what you may read.
In the end, stock prices are mostly a function of human behaviour (ignoring the trading bots for now) and that's something that Economists have tried to model for decades too - with fleeting success at best despite what you may read.
I'm not an economist and my maths are from school years. From that point of view I've tried to read the basics about political economy. I don't know how to put it but the whole thing hardly seems scientific to me... What I mean is that it mostly describes the facts rather than explaining the mechanism. More like a gathering of axioms that nonetheless are valid. Apparently the main stream is not interested of any deeper analysis. When funds have to be invested, they must be, it's urgent and brutal, and precognition comes second to target. The result looks like an oscillation with the center point moving. The more bigger funds move it in an exponential function. Limited funds make the cos and sin more painful...
It takes a breathtaking level of ignorance to slam a science except one's own specialization.
If you call a discipline that can explain everything ex post but can predict nothing ex ante a sciene, then it is a science otherwise not!
It is worse than geology!
YouTube
You mean this isn't true? I'm shocked, shocked.
Laffer curve: Everything Trump and Republicans get wrong about trickle-down economics and Reaganomics — Quartz
LOL. Thanks for the excellent case for why economics is a science. So Laffer puts out his theory, most peers disagree with him right from the start, and over time data collected disproves it even more. Hmmm, I wonder if anything similar ever happened in the physical sciences.
I should say I'm not surprised at the level of ignorance displayed. I started my MBA at the ripe old age of 49, and was shocked at how much material my cohort would just not "get", it would literally just bounce off their sheilds made up of ego, arrogance, and personal bias.
It's probably more like this one.
Google Image Result for https://robertnielsen21.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/laffer_curve_3.png
Economy is way too much Politics and Power loaded/influenced to become a Science.
Personal/Group interests pressure it too much so it can not freely develop.
As a side note, there must be some reason that there are many Nobel Prizes for different Sciences ... and not for Economy. (surprise surprise)
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I would say it is a science of sorts - from the perspective that it measures data and develops models to explain the real world - and there is an attempt to forecast behaviour based on these models. There is an earnest attempt to identify cause and effect. I'm a physicist and as a discipline it does something similar although it also comes up with theories that stretch credibility from time to time. The benefit of a science like Physics is the premise that the laws of physics are not subject to human behaviour. Economics has to contend with human behaviour, a significant challenge - and for that I admire the profession.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.