viraghrr

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by viraghrr 7y ago

   Thanks, great analysis. (I take your point.) How about my paper I started this thread with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19722455 Any thoughts?
2. 2.▲
   by viraghrr 7y ago

   I think difficult analysis is a very frequent part of the stock market. My argument was not so much about luck as about speed of analysis. EMH doesn't allow some people to analyze information faster than others. For example if Intel
3. 3.▲
   by viraghrr 7y ago

   Right, two different things. I meant: 1) those results wouldn't be at odds with my results. 2) but I wonder if myWindoonn judges the paper they linked to be correct? (unflawed, complete etc - does it prove its titular claim?) if the
4. 4.▲
   by viraghrr 7y ago

   Thank you for the link. you say, "do not expect to be correct" but the abstract of the paper you linked says "Since P probably does not equal NP, markets are probably not efficient". do you agree with the paper?
5. 5.▲
   by viraghrr 7y ago

   okay so going with your analogy it's like publishing a picture of what's inside the vault but you publish the picture encrypted. imagine the encryption is a 20-letter random password in winzip (imagine winzip is secure) with the p
6. 6.▲
   by viraghrr 7y ago

   I'm a crank. I found this article very valuable. In 2010 I put online a brief refutation of the EMH, the efficient market hypothesis. Here it is: https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.0423 If I had seen this then, I think