> > 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.
Sure, anyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Personally, I am far from being a die-hard supporter of even the weak form of the EMH. However, I appreciate the traditional direct evidence against the EMH (that is, by actually exhibiting a trading strategy capable of producing risk-adjusted excess returns consistently, in real-time with real money); to me, all the rest is mostly useless, at best. On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:23 AM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
