temptrader
Well-known member
- Messages
- 393
- Likes
- 55
I didn't see the broadcast, and quit frankly I don't care to. Du Sautoy is a group theorist by the way.
I didn't see the broadcast, and quit frankly I don't care to. Du Sautoy is a group theorist by the way.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
One would think the rewards from the financial markets would attract the very best mathematicians.Like many academics - what is beyond their capabilities is written off as if it were of little interest or possibility. The maths of forecasting could be very very profitable if it's at all possible.
Somebody's effort to reduce fundamental news to figures seems to have disappeared off the current radar. Probably not very successful ?
Somebody's effort to reduce fundamental news to figures seems to have disappeared off the current radar. Probably not very successful ?
Lee Shepherd
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,164
- Likes
- 573
Somehow I guessed by you initial post you didn't bother.
Why post on a thread where someone has gone to the trouble of posting and bringing to the attention of others just so you could have your view on something you haven't heard.
Anyway stop wasting your time and get back to your station. Do some work.:cheesy:
0007
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,377
- Likes
- 664
TempT
You're right about the need to know. But it's an interesting subject that many don't understand and perhaps wish they did. Few subjects are untouched by mathematics.
temptrader
Well-known member
- Messages
- 393
- Likes
- 55
TempT
You're right about the need to know. But it's an interesting subject that many don't understand and perhaps wish they did. Few subjects are untouched by mathematics.
Take it from me, and I mean it very sincerely, there are other areas of mathematics full of such astounding and amazing wonders that it would take your breath away. . . . . the only problem is that very, very few are able to reach these areas, to be able to see them, to play in them, the general population will never know they even exist, and you are thus feed popular "tripe" that serves for your amusement.
0007
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,377
- Likes
- 664
Isn't "popular science" now quite an entertainment industry? What I used to know as numeracy now goes under the guise of mathematics ! But we aren't training many scientists / engineers / mathematicians - this is our future national lifeblood. How will all the mortgage brokers etc etc keep us as a prosperous nation?
A Dashing Blade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,373
- Likes
- 170
Go read Taleb, made me re-examine my dependency on Gaussian distributions. :smart:
Mr. Charts
Legendary member
- Messages
- 7,370
- Likes
- 1,200
Agree.
Read "The Black Swan", the second book; better than the first imho.
Richard
Read "The Black Swan", the second book; better than the first imho.
Richard
From Richard's link above, see the section on Converse Probabilities (The Birthday Problem):
Probability Theory
I've only skimmed through this but it seems to contradict the basic tenet (if that's the correct description) of tossing a coin, ie regardless of the outcome, the odds still remain 50/50.
This article seems to determine odds by extrapolating from the preceding result. By way of analogy, if the previous coin came up heads, then the odds of the next coin being heads is not 50/50 (not particularly well expressed but I hope it illustrates my point).
Perhaps one of you maths bods can comment here.
One of the standard texts on probability theory is William Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications (2 vols). I bought this a few years ago and I still can't get past the index ("best left to quants").
GJ,
Did you're girlfriend ask for this podcast to avoid listening to more music of your youth?
Grant.
Probability Theory
I've only skimmed through this but it seems to contradict the basic tenet (if that's the correct description) of tossing a coin, ie regardless of the outcome, the odds still remain 50/50.
This article seems to determine odds by extrapolating from the preceding result. By way of analogy, if the previous coin came up heads, then the odds of the next coin being heads is not 50/50 (not particularly well expressed but I hope it illustrates my point).
Perhaps one of you maths bods can comment here.
One of the standard texts on probability theory is William Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications (2 vols). I bought this a few years ago and I still can't get past the index ("best left to quants").
GJ,
Did you're girlfriend ask for this podcast to avoid listening to more music of your youth?
Grant.
temptrader
Well-known member
- Messages
- 393
- Likes
- 55
that book's for the public, and the layman, hence of very little interest for professional mathematicians. And there is a whole lot more going on than Gaussian distributions I can tell you.:whistling
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,038
- Likes
- 508
If the sequential coin throws are statistically independent then it's 50/50.
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,038
- Likes
- 508
Yes. Its statistics of a population.
So its like saying there are 30 people in a room. Each tosses a 5000 sided dice. Whats the odds that 2 of them will have the same result. Totally different to one series of sequential independent throws (or even slightly dependent throws).
So its like saying there are 30 people in a room. Each tosses a 5000 sided dice. Whats the odds that 2 of them will have the same result. Totally different to one series of sequential independent throws (or even slightly dependent throws).
Nine,
OK, with birthdays the odds of the same date are 365/1 (ie 365 day to year), with the coin 50/50. Regardless of whether the first coin tosses are heads, the probability of the next outcome is still 50/50. The odds don't change.
Similarly, our birthdays. If the first birthday is 15 June, the probability of the next is still 365/1. The odds don't change.
This article is saying the opposite - if the first date is, eg 15 June, the probability for the next date increases. There is a term for this, which I can't remember, whereby a result is continually removed from a range of possibilities until there is only one result remaining.
I can't see how you can differentiate the sequential from simulataneous in your example. A thousand people tossing a thousand coins simulateously (or sequentially) does not change the odds.
The article is only about 50 words - I need few more people to read it and claify the point. Where are the quants when you need them?
Grant.
OK, with birthdays the odds of the same date are 365/1 (ie 365 day to year), with the coin 50/50. Regardless of whether the first coin tosses are heads, the probability of the next outcome is still 50/50. The odds don't change.
Similarly, our birthdays. If the first birthday is 15 June, the probability of the next is still 365/1. The odds don't change.
This article is saying the opposite - if the first date is, eg 15 June, the probability for the next date increases. There is a term for this, which I can't remember, whereby a result is continually removed from a range of possibilities until there is only one result remaining.
I can't see how you can differentiate the sequential from simulataneous in your example. A thousand people tossing a thousand coins simulateously (or sequentially) does not change the odds.
The article is only about 50 words - I need few more people to read it and claify the point. Where are the quants when you need them?
Grant.
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,038
- Likes
- 508
No it doesnt say that.
What it is asking is "what is the odd that the next person doesnt have the same birthday"
So for the second person its 1/364th (because 1 day is gone)
So for the second person its 1/363th (because 2 day is gone)
So for the second person its 1/362th (because 3 day is gone)
The odds didn't change. The odds for person 3 of having birthday a) is 1/365 but the odds for "the third person" NOT TO HAVE the same birthday as the 1st and 2nd people is 1/(365-2) because 2 days have gone.
Nothing funny. Its just that you're dealing with populations. The question has changed.
If you think that's hard try the Baysian stuff (speeling?) where you look at medical tests and discover that most doctors don't have the faintest what the test is really telling them because the probability stuff is so counterintuitive.
What it is asking is "what is the odd that the next person doesnt have the same birthday"
So for the second person its 1/364th (because 1 day is gone)
So for the second person its 1/363th (because 2 day is gone)
So for the second person its 1/362th (because 3 day is gone)
The odds didn't change. The odds for person 3 of having birthday a) is 1/365 but the odds for "the third person" NOT TO HAVE the same birthday as the 1st and 2nd people is 1/(365-2) because 2 days have gone.
Nothing funny. Its just that you're dealing with populations. The question has changed.
If you think that's hard try the Baysian stuff (speeling?) where you look at medical tests and discover that most doctors don't have the faintest what the test is really telling them because the probability stuff is so counterintuitive.
A Dashing Blade
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,373
- Likes
- 170
Noticed a lot of mathematician/quant types saying that.
Wonder if it's because his point (convincingly made imo) is that they add (at best) no value whatever any industry/profession/technique/market that contains outliers? :whistling
Well, I think it's similar to those trading books by people who can't trade. You wonder why they were written. Oh, yes, the money and status.
And Taleb seems to have a longing to be seen as a veeeery intelligent individual. But when reading FBR I found myself getting pissed off repeatedly at how he can be so pretentious when his insights are shallow or muddled. And on some deeper philosophical points he's simply wrong, I think.
His Dynamic Hedging book is good, whereas nothing remains of FBR if you take away what's been said better by others. "Cobbler, stick to your last."
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,038
- Likes
- 508
Agreed rw.
Taleb p***es everyone else off by being such an arrogant s*** but the book is also lightweight on the numbers (a fun read and useful if it make one think beyond ones normal realms but not the best book on statistical insight even amongst those without numbers). Also when he gets off his expertise he gets fuzzy (he dipped into mine at one point and was "rightishshshsh") and he seems to think that no one out there is willing to exit when they are "wrong."
Enjoyable. Stimulating. But very much a product of the man (like Victor's stuff).
Taleb p***es everyone else off by being such an arrogant s*** but the book is also lightweight on the numbers (a fun read and useful if it make one think beyond ones normal realms but not the best book on statistical insight even amongst those without numbers). Also when he gets off his expertise he gets fuzzy (he dipped into mine at one point and was "rightishshshsh") and he seems to think that no one out there is willing to exit when they are "wrong."
Enjoyable. Stimulating. But very much a product of the man (like Victor's stuff).
