Serving the Quantitative Finance Community

 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 2572
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm
Contact:

Why?

March 4th, 2020, 9:56 pm

12<11
12<7
8<7
8<6
8<3
4<3
 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 6604
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

Re: Why?

March 5th, 2020, 7:46 am

2<1
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 20254
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: 20, 000

Re: Why?

March 5th, 2020, 10:12 am

One way: operator overloading, 
 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 6604
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

Re: Why?

March 5th, 2020, 7:17 pm

2<9
 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 7440
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Re: Why?

March 5th, 2020, 10:04 pm

 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 6604
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

Re: Why?

March 5th, 2020, 10:09 pm

We’ll never know, I think Collector has the virus. Damn, it’s frustrating. Oh, yes, and very sad.
 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 2572
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Why?

March 6th, 2020, 10:50 am

the rumors of me turning into a math genius from the 1<9 virus are strongly exaggerated!

Paul is correct on 2<1 and 2<9 (lucky fool? or he got the  1<9 virus too?)
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 20254
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: 20, 000

Re: Why?

March 6th, 2020, 12:38 pm

Popular(ised) science? 42?
Haven't read the book but it feels like pseudo-mathematical (like The Road to Reality?). Could be wrong of course.
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 3420
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

Re: Why?

March 6th, 2020, 12:47 pm

No question that less can be more sometimes!
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 20254
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: 20, 000

Re: Why?

March 6th, 2020, 12:53 pm

No question that less can be more sometimes!
Whatever that's suppose to mean :-)
 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 6604
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

Re: Why?

March 6th, 2020, 3:40 pm

the rumors of me turning into a math genius from the 1<9 virus are strongly exaggerated!

Paul is correct on 2<1 and 2<9 (lucky fool? or he got the  1<9 virus too?)
I'm quitting while I'm ahead!
 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 7440
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Re: Why?

March 6th, 2020, 3:44 pm

Popular(ised) science? 42?
Haven't read the book but it feels like pseudo-mathematical (like The Road to Reality?). Could be wrong of course.
Judea Pearl is a Turing Prize laureate. He introduced many useful logical concepts in probabilistic and statistical reasoning. A celebrated figure in the AI field, (which claimed him together with the rest of modern science! :-D) He's also a called philosopher - I'd say he's a thinker who studies the history and philosophy of science (which is more interesting and respectable in a scientist, imho). Oh, and he started in a solid state physics, so it feels like he's my kindred spirit :-)
I haven't read the book yet, but I know his work in statistics quite well and it's a quality, critical and actually useful stuff.
The book is his personal scientific statement, I believe, it seems accessibly written.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 20254
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: 20, 000

Re: Why?

March 6th, 2020, 5:58 pm

The book is his personal scientific statement, I believe, it seems accessibly written.

Fair enough. But the subtitle "The new science of cause and effect" seems to be a bit far-fetched. 

Many giants like Kant and Wittgenstein preceded him I reckon.

I'm "taking the book by the cover.." 
 
User avatar
katastrofa
Posts: 7440
Joined: August 16th, 2007, 5:36 am
Location: Alpha Centauri

Re: Why?

March 6th, 2020, 8:33 pm

I think Pearl doesn't get metaphysical in his work. If I had a chance, though, I'd ask him whether he sees an AI as an ability to sneak-peak into the noumental realm or just a better description of the phenomenological experience - and if the second, what's the use of an AI which sees something that we don't see? how can we know if it's even real? (Brings to mind PK Dick's New Men vs Unusuals from Frolix 8).

Anyway, he indeed developed a framework for causal reasoning (directed acyclic graphs/Bayesian networks) which almost automatically removed paradoxes plaguing statistical inference.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 20254
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: 20, 000

Re: Why?

March 7th, 2020, 1:29 pm

I think Pearl doesn't get metaphysical in his work. If I had a chance, though, I'd ask him whether he sees an AI as an ability to sneak-peak into the noumental realm or just a better description of the phenomenological experience - and if the second, what's the use of an AI which sees something that we don't see? how can we know if it's even real? (Brings to mind PK Dick's New Men vs Unusuals from Frolix 8).

I think that's the nub of the issue here. I believe that influence diagrams IDs mathematize and formalize Wright's path diagrams but I find it hard to believe these fancy graphs are explanations rather than a description/model of causation. They are 'just' CS data structures??

IDs might be a good medium, but how can we be sure that the input data is consistent? H.E. Niles noted in 1921. We can draw an arc from node A to B but that is not the issue. Has Niles' objections between resolved to warrant the high-falutin' claim 'the science of causation'.

Image