3 ms·
I have to question the meaning of their result. it's a known and inituitive result that a random walk on a lattice eventually reaches every point. This has no
by bronzeage 7y ago
I have to question the meaning of their result.
it's a known and inituitive result that a random walk on a lattice eventually reaches every point. This has no practical meaning whatsoever. it's not an interesting result because, just like the random walk on a lattice, after one person becomes an oligarchy, eventually a different person will also become an oligarch.
why did you choose to stop when the first became an oligarch? to make a click baity title?
people need to understand probabilities to read through bullshit like this article.
- bronzeage 7y agoIf you want to judge a random walk in a meaningful way, you never ask "what's the probability of reaching X started?" you ask "how long do you stay in states like X". the expected time to exit "oligarchy" states should be pretty small. the whole discussion is completely meaningless, they intentionally asked a misleading question.
- anotherone15 7y agoThey are pointing out the existence of a fixed point in the oligarch state. Yes, you can estimate the time to leave this fixed state by invoking an analogy to a classical mechanics problem, where the time to leave is proportional to the exponential of the action.
- cryoshon 7y agothey actually address your concern in the article. once an agent achieves "oligarch" status in their model, the flow of wealth towards them accelerates rather than decelerates such that the remaining agents have no ability to exchange wealth with anyone other than the oligarch. so intermediates between the lowest level with nothing and the oligarch are temporary at best.