viraghr

4 ms·

1.
by viraghr 8y ago
>It is more natural to talk about primality as a test that can be done independent of any assumptions about other primes, but rather as a matter of whether it can be expressed as the multiple of some number other than 1 and itself This i
2.
by viraghr 8y ago
100 possibilities are really easy to test, though, so P must be fully available near the end. We can all agree it's not available at the beginning (subject to the methodology.) So it becomes more and more available over time, but tha
3.
by viraghr 8y ago
Andrew, I perfectly see what you're saying, but I am telling you it is absolutely no problem that there's a false statement. Remember that we are arguing from the false assumption that you start with the finite set of all primes,
4.
by viraghr 8y ago
Sure, but you can't "amend EMH" to fully reflect all the facts that are "feasible to compute" any more than you can amend it to say that that asset prices fully reflect the "best feasible analysis". Tha
5.
by viraghr 8y ago
Thanks, very charitable reading but doesn't work because next sentence I said that the new prime is larger than largest. As other poster points out if 2,7 are all your primes you produce 15, whose primes are not larger than 7 so the &
6.
by viraghr 8y ago
If you can show an inefficient market experimentally whenever you want, that's good enough to disprove EMH. The EMH doesn't say, "All information is normally factored into the price, except for technicalities." I like y
7.
by viraghr 8y ago
Suppose 2 and 7 are the only primes < 15. Then 15 is prime because its prime factorization couldn't contain any other number (2 * 7+1 makes it relatively prime to both 2 and 7 which under the supposition are the only primes < 15
8.
by viraghr 8y ago
Have another account here but don't want to take the karma hit for being a crank. I published this 2-page proof that the EMH is false: https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.0423 (didn't set the date so in the document