Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: EXPLAIN URSELF CULLIONZ!!!

  1. #1


    Yes | No

    Default EXPLAIN URSELF CULLIONZ!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Trump can't actually win an election.. can he ?
    Quote Originally Posted by MerkinMuffly View Post
    Short answer is no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    I think you're right here.

  2. #2
    If I die before I wake.. Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39,867


    1
    Yes | No

    Default

    The basic arithmetic in this paper isn't even sound. The coin toss example obviously guarantees that even if heads and tails are of exactly equal probability you would lose wealth over time.

    Wealth(c) = current wealth
    Heads: Wealth(c+1) = 1.5 Wealth(c)
    Tails: Wealth(c+1) = 0.6 Wealth(c)

    if you win once and lose once you end up with 0.9 (10% less) wealth. Over time, assuming equal numbers of heads and tails your wealth tends to zero. Only an idiot would take this gamble, even without any fee to play.

    Garbage.
    ONE SOUL AT A TIME

    Quote Originally Posted by Danno
    i got nothing, you win again.
    Quote Originally Posted by resolve
    I trust God more than I trust you. And that will never change. I've always viewed you as kind of a snake. No biblical connotations need apply, just the regular ones. You're wise. You're really intelligent. But you're also conniving and have this way of getting what you want when you want it. The sickness I was talking about was your propensity to kind of reach in and grasp on to something to define someone here. You harangue them about it and manipulate it in to conversations. You do that with every single poster here. You do this until they see things your way. The "correct way". It's vile.

  3. #3


    Yes | No

    Default

    That's just an example of probablistic weighting for people like NoB.

    You not understanding the use of examples is hardly a damning critique.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Trump can't actually win an election.. can he ?
    Quote Originally Posted by MerkinMuffly View Post
    Short answer is no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    I think you're right here.

  4. #4


    Yes | No

    Default

    Wow. All through the use of a new economic model, humans will begin to care about others and understand that cooperation leads to better results, and be more patient and kind.

  5. #5


    Yes | No

    Default

    I doubt that the greedy little shits
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Trump can't actually win an election.. can he ?
    Quote Originally Posted by MerkinMuffly View Post
    Short answer is no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    I think you're right here.

  6. #6
    If I die before I wake.. Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39,867


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin View Post
    That's just an example of probablistic weighting for people like NoB.

    You not understanding the use of examples is hardly a damning critique.
    The paper itself misues the example. It creates a strawman 'expected outcome' to try and make it's bloviated explaination of the true outcome it monte-carlos seem erudite. The expected outcome they give is obviously nonsense to anybody with GCSE/Highschool level algebra. The blue line in the graph is simply wrong. The expected outcome of this gamble after 1000 rounds is 0.9^500 * the starting wealth (i.e. you lose almost all of your wealth). The blue line should go down on the log scale, not up. This renders all their waffle about ergodicity a moot point.

    The reason why economics cannot predict things with such precision is simply that it deals with systems much too complex and chaotic to perform controlled experiments on, or to know all the initial conditions of.
    Last edited by Cullion; 5th December 19 at 05:33 PM.
    ONE SOUL AT A TIME

    Quote Originally Posted by Danno
    i got nothing, you win again.
    Quote Originally Posted by resolve
    I trust God more than I trust you. And that will never change. I've always viewed you as kind of a snake. No biblical connotations need apply, just the regular ones. You're wise. You're really intelligent. But you're also conniving and have this way of getting what you want when you want it. The sickness I was talking about was your propensity to kind of reach in and grasp on to something to define someone here. You harangue them about it and manipulate it in to conversations. You do that with every single poster here. You do this until they see things your way. The "correct way". It's vile.

  7. #7


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    It creates a strawman 'expected outcome' to try and make it's bloviated explaination of the true outcome it monte-carlos seem erudite.
    Thats sentence doesnt even make sense.

    The expected outcome they give is obviously nonsense to anybody with GCSE/Highschool level algebra. The blue line in the graph is simply wrong. The expected outcome of this gamble after 1000 rounds is 0.9^500 * the starting wealth (i.e. you lose almost all of your wealth). The blue line should go down on the log scale, not up.
    The blue line isnt on a log scale & the derivatve of it is in fact going down.

    The reason why economics cannot predict things with such precision is simply that it deals with systems much too complex and chaotic to perform controlled experiments on, or to know all the initial conditions of.
    Which is why the ergodic hypothesis has never worked out in economic models.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Trump can't actually win an election.. can he ?
    Quote Originally Posted by MerkinMuffly View Post
    Short answer is no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    I think you're right here.

  8. #8
    If I die before I wake.. Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39,867


    Yes | No

    Default

    "Thats sentence doesnt even make sense."

    It's perfectly simple. They set up a false expectation to make their prediction seem surprising and interesting when it isn't.

    "The blue line isnt on a log scale & the derivatve of it is in fact going down."

    The absolute value should go down on a log scale because it should be a graph of 0.9^(x/2)
    Last edited by Cullion; 6th December 19 at 10:15 AM.
    ONE SOUL AT A TIME

    Quote Originally Posted by Danno
    i got nothing, you win again.
    Quote Originally Posted by resolve
    I trust God more than I trust you. And that will never change. I've always viewed you as kind of a snake. No biblical connotations need apply, just the regular ones. You're wise. You're really intelligent. But you're also conniving and have this way of getting what you want when you want it. The sickness I was talking about was your propensity to kind of reach in and grasp on to something to define someone here. You harangue them about it and manipulate it in to conversations. You do that with every single poster here. You do this until they see things your way. The "correct way". It's vile.

  9. #9


    Yes | No

    Default

    Oh dear go back & read the paper properly. Its a graph of u(x) = ln x & nowhere is it said that it was graphed on a 'log scale' because that would make the blue line straight.

    WTF are they teaching you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Trump can't actually win an election.. can he ?
    Quote Originally Posted by MerkinMuffly View Post
    Short answer is no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    I think you're right here.

  10. #10
    If I die before I wake.. Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39,867


    1
    Yes | No

    Default

    Your last post is completely irrelevant to my point. Their line of expected values is incorrect.

    Here's the graph. It's using logarithmic y axis.



    The example gamble is given in equation (2). The expectation value, 〈x〉, (blue line) is the average over an infinite ensemble, but it doesn’t reflect what happens over time
    The expectation values are wrong. We *wouldn't* expect the wealth of a player to increase over time, just with simple secondary school algebra. No monte carlo simulation is required to tell that is an incorrect expectation. See above.

    We would expect the blue line to be a plot of 0.9^(number of rounds/2), which would have a negative slope plotted on this graph, or approach zero plotted on linear axes.
    Last edited by Cullion; 6th December 19 at 12:51 PM.
    ONE SOUL AT A TIME

    Quote Originally Posted by Danno
    i got nothing, you win again.
    Quote Originally Posted by resolve
    I trust God more than I trust you. And that will never change. I've always viewed you as kind of a snake. No biblical connotations need apply, just the regular ones. You're wise. You're really intelligent. But you're also conniving and have this way of getting what you want when you want it. The sickness I was talking about was your propensity to kind of reach in and grasp on to something to define someone here. You harangue them about it and manipulate it in to conversations. You do that with every single poster here. You do this until they see things your way. The "correct way". It's vile.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
◮ Top