3 ms·

We? Speak for yourself. Your standards of efficiency are not relevant.

• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• gte910h 14y ago
  I was referring to P=NP there, and the "We" is the "computer science community", which I am a part of (Ex-applied researcher). And if you have an opinion about that, no one really cares unless you're a mathematician/computer science researcher who has positive/dispositive leads towards a conclusion, or a non-research person doing work, that can be used to push the research along one way or another towards an answer This isn't about standards or opinions. Is the paper correct showing P=NP is required for markets to be efficient? If yes, then "Markets are Efficient" is only true if P=NP. "Efficient" has a technical definition that's not one of opinion. That's like saying your opinion on whether this chemical solution has fluorine in it. No, it does or it doesn't. Now: The paper is the only real thing for you to attack in this conversation. It's math. "I prove that if markets are weak-form efficient, meaning current prices fully reflect all information available in past prices, then P = NP, meaning every computational problem whose solution can be verified in polynomial time can also be solved in polynomial time. " Here is the definition of weak-form efficient: "The weak-form EMH claims that prices on traded assets (e.g., stocks, bonds, or property) already reflect all past publicly available information." Why do I only list Weak-Form? Because the other forms have weak-form as a prerequisite And what if you want to "reject my opinion of efficiency here"? Then you're saying the free market is crap, because its prices aren't worth a damn because they don't take into account enough information.