A note comprising a negative resolution of the Efficient Market Hypothesis · HackerPapers discussions

A note comprising a negative resolution of the Efficient Market Hypothesis — mentioned by fdsakjfsdfj

Sun, 31 May 2020 19:04:10 GMT

It might interest some people here to know that if the EMH were true, you could use it to break unbreakable cryptography. However that's not what would happen. If you tried it, your crack would fail, and you would just end up proving experimentally that EMH isn't true. That would move the discussion to "is it true except if you test it in weird experiments though?" which is not an interesting point of debate: Obviously there are no market participants with infinite wisdom and processing ability who know all public news and factor it into every stock's price instantly at all times, and are…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A note comprising a negative resolution of the Efficient Market Hypothesis — mentioned by viraghrr

Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:16:03 GMT

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 I would have followed the directions in the inset box, where the article suggests saying something like: "The reason I succeeded in finding an algorithm for P=NP is that I noticed that... No one else seems to see that this insight is very powerful. It is very useful since it implies ..." I could have simply written: "Nobody has bothered to test the Efficient Market Hypothesis, but…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A note comprising a negative resolution of the Efficient Market Hypothesis — mentioned by viraghr

Fri, 01 Jun 2018 08:22:43 GMT

Have another account here but don't want to take the karma hit for being a crank. I published this 2-page proof that the EMH is false: https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.0423 (didn't set the date so in the document it's wrong, this was published 2010.) It doesn't depend on P = NP, it's simply a rigorous proof that EMH is false. Let's switch gears a second. Here's a famous elementary proof[1] that there are infinite primes. Suppose there are just finite primes, up to some largest. Multiply them together and add one. No prime divides the new number (because "every" prime leaves a remainder 1), so…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.