4 ms·
I guess it's a matter of definitions. The kind of linguistics Chomsky worked on were rather mathematical, for example, see the Chomsky Hierarchy (http://en.wiki
by smanek 18y ago
I guess it's a matter of definitions. The kind of linguistics Chomsky worked on were rather mathematical, for example, see the Chomsky Hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy) which is used extensively in Computer Science.
And Krugman's actual papers are basically pure math. I'm having trouble finding many of his papers that aren't behind a pay wall, but see http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/scale_econ.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/scale_econ.pdf or http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/geography.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/geography.pdf. And if memory serves, didn't he also write a paper on the effects of special relativity on the time value of capital? (I can't seem to find a copy ...). I know econ is only a 'dismal science,' but don't be too hard on it ;-)
- fgsndf 18y agoIt is a matter of definitions. They aren't in the harder sciences. Try reading Chomsky's language books. (The Chomsky hierarchy is an exception.) Both have a large body of work based on sound mathematical models with tenuous connections to reality (hence, soft science). Both have also been full-time pushers of a certain intellectual orthodoxies for as long as anyone can remember.
- gjm11 18y ago"The theory of interstellar trade": http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/interstellar.pdf "This paper, then, is a serious analysis of a ridiculous subject, which is of course the opposite of what is usual in economics." Although he calls it "serious", it's full of little jokes, some of them very good.
- eru 18y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=331284 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=331284