From: John Conover <john@email.johncon.com>
Subject: Re: Utility, Transitivity, and Economic Modelling.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:34:10 GMT
Christopher Auld writes:
>
> True, yet it is very difficult to get very far studying complex systems
> without employing modelling. I would also note that descriptive,
> verbal explanations are more often than not simply "models" written
> in English rather than mathematics, and hence suffer from all the same
> problems as mathematical models without the clarity. Open any newspaper
> and read the business section if you want to see no end of "models"
> which would be exposed as clearly wrong if the language used was
> math. Or read populist economics written by non-economists, for
> example, anything by Robert Reich.
>
So, why can't Nash equilibrium have fractal solutions? I mean, that
would tie it all together; game-theoretic, macro, and entropic
economics.
Intransitivity and self-referential indeterminism would provide the
game-theoretic Nash equilibrium and the unpredictability/randomness of
the fractal over time, which has long term averages that are
macroeconomic variables.
John
BTW, of course the last paragraph could also be interpreted as job
security for economist. It accommodates theories, all of which are
true, but mutually exclusive. The first paragraph states that we can
make a science out of it. 8^)
--
John Conover, john@email.johncon.com, http://www.johncon.com/