On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 1:01 PM Jose Mario Quintana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Are you being sarcastic? But, no, instead I assumed that the author's 2 order example was meant to illustrate the mechanisms behind his statement: "In other words, the market allows us to compute in polynomial time the solution to an arbitrary 3-SAT problem." And, I was assuming that his example was not meant to be the entirety of what he was trying to say. That, and I was also trying to illustrate one of the reasons why I thought current regulations would not permit the solution of arbitrary 3-SAT problems. > > 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. I see no contradiction here. (But if you are asking if I also did not see that title? Yes, sadly, I did not see that title when I was reading the text of that regulation.) > > > 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. Indeed. Sarcasm (and other forms of insincerity) are considerably more difficult to recognize in text than in person. > After reciting a litany of arguments apparently you have convinced yourself > that this is a la-la market programming. Congratulations! I see no contradiction here. Then again, this roughly approximates my starting point of view about EMH. I believe "lala land" is a perfectly adequate way of characterizing all forms of the EMH. > > In other words, so far, the alleged strong or semi-strong inefficiency > > *might* only be falsified in Lala Land. Are you being sarcastic? > > 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. That's a bit silly, but then so are the various EMH hypotheses... Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
