Re: [OT] (was): Robust Algorithms

From: AlphaOmega (OmegaZero2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/20/04

  • Next message: Edward M. Reingold: "Re: Silly Recurrence" 
    Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:28:19 -0700

    "David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:s2OkswD8+WwBFwYG@longley.demon.co.uk...
    > In article <41c14720.59338130@news.east.earthlink.net>, David James
    > Polewka <joseywales@outlaw.nospam> writes
    >>"=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn" <jon.fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Ralph Hartley <hartley@aic.nrl.navy.mil> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> David James Polewka wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> > That's right! The number of people who believe something
    >>>> > has nothing to do with whether it is true or false! Never has,
    >>>> > and never will!
    >>>>
    >>>> Many people disagree with that!
    >>>
    >>>Actually, there's an instance where it does: money. If
    >>>enough people believe that the dollar is worth less, it's
    >>>worth less. ;-)
    >>
    >>Any more? How about an exhaustive listing!?!
    >>
    >>
    >>=========================
    >> "Endeavor to persevere"
    >>=========================
    >
    > Even in the above case, it isn't what people *believe* that determines the
    > "value" of the dollar, it's what's *done* with "it".

    Wrong again. Belief (in the future movement of a host of particulars,
    economic, cultural and military) is a strong determinant of the movement of
    the currancy markets. Please get thee an education before spouting nonsense
    again.

    That mentalistic parameter exists and you are a fool if you think it does
    not.

    > The fact that these behaviours (e.g trading) need not even be done by
    > *people* shows that a) it has nothing to do with "belief" and b) that it
    > doesn't matter how *many* agents are involved. It comes down to subtleties
    > to do with the *rates* of behaviours and their controlling contingencies.
    >
    > "Mentalistic" economics provides no more support than the original
    > "mentalistic" psychology which began this exchange. It's just another
    > egregious example of the same problem - "mentalism" and intensional
    > opacity.
    > --
    > David Longley
    > http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm
    >

  • Next message: Edward M. Reingold: "Re: Silly Recurrence"