On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:47 PM Donna Y <[email protected]> wrote: > "All meaning" isn't the sort of information Fama was claiming fair prices > transmit.
Are you suggesting that https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientmarkethypothesis.asp is incorrect? > Yes there is fraud or the possibility of fraud—does that make the market > inefficient by definition. Fine, see below, it says nothing about SAT-1 or > the class NP. Or, specifically, the sort of thing mentioned at https://www.cftc.gov/ConsumerProtection/FraudAwarenessPrevention/CFTCFraudAdvisories/index.htm suggests that we are not working with anything which matches the ideals of EMH. > Else showing the market has regulators that make it inefficient then so be > it, EMH is not efficient by definition. That does not prove anything about C > or the class NP. The conceit, here, is that market regulations would be relaxed to the point where we could place contracts in the market representing any calculation. That we could treat the market as an oracle which would present us with the computed answer as a part of fulfilling the contract. You are correct that that's a hypothetical market and not the current market. You are correct that that could not be a practical use of the market. That's was the point. > To include everything that is known about S in A may make the mathematics > analytically or computationally intractable. Yes. And that's the problem. In fact, we have laws restricting insider trading. This tends to make the "all available information" concept less accurate for some individuals and, as a tradeoff, tends to make the "all available information" concept more widely applicable to the remainder of the market participants. Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
