Re: [math-fun] Plenty of Room at the Bottom, Part II
Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> forwarded:
Stock Traders Find Speed Pays, in Milliseconds
by Charles Duhigg Friday, July 24, 2009
The New York Times
There's a centuries-old tradition that complains that trading is tricky fast moves, and therefore unfair. The article nearly rises above that level but not quite. Hard to tell whether the people quoted were just whining, or they actually had points to make but the reporter scrambled them beyond recognition. The question boils down to whether the rules under which trading occurs are fair. If so, behavior that makes profit for the trader is also doing the market as a whole a service. If not, the system can be gamed. The question of fairness vs. gaming is not about whether any Joe off the street, or a member of just any species on the planet, no matter how slow its clock cycle, has an equal chance of making a fulfilling living as a trader. Those of us in the rest of the economy should not be trying to insure that old firms, business models, individuals, species, algorithms and chip generations are protected against upstarts or startups. I imagine there are still niches on Wall Street for smart humans. --Steve "PERnicious nonsense!" (J. Frank Parnell) "Don't let it bring you down, it's only castles burning, find someone who's turning, and you will come around." (Niel Young)
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Steve Witham wrote:
The question boils down to whether the rules under which trading occurs are fair. If so, behavior that makes profit for the trader is also doing the market as a whole a service.
Do you mean fair to the privileged class of high-speed traders, or fair to the market as a whole? If it's the latter, then the claim is rather tautological. If it's the former, then why does "profitable for high-speed traders" imply "good for the market as a whole"? ...
The question of fairness vs. gaming is not about whether any Joe off the street, or a member of just any species on the planet, no matter how slow its clock cycle, has an equal chance of making a fulfilling living as a trader. Those of us in the rest of the economy should not be trying to insure that old firms, business models, individuals, species, algorithms and chip generations are protected against upstarts or startups.
I agree about that, however I'm not sure why we should necessarily allow traders to implement schemes that let them make trades orders of magnitude faster than everybody else.
I think this thread is diffusing away from mathematics and into politics. -- Gene ________________________________ From: Jason <jason@lunkwill.org> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:20:52 AM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Plenty of Room at the Bottom, Part II On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Steve Witham wrote:
The question boils down to whether the rules under which trading occurs are fair. If so, behavior that makes profit for the trader is also doing the market as a whole a service.
Do you mean fair to the privileged class of high-speed traders, or fair to the market as a whole? If it's the latter, then the claim is rather tautological. If it's the former, then why does "profitable for high-speed traders" imply "good for the market as a whole"? ...
The question of fairness vs. gaming is not about whether any Joe off the street, or a member of just any species on the planet, no matter how slow its clock cycle, has an equal chance of making a fulfilling living as a trader. Those of us in the rest of the economy should not be trying to insure that old firms, business models, individuals, species, algorithms and chip generations are protected against upstarts or startups.
I agree about that, however I'm not sure why we should necessarily allow traders to implement schemes that let them make trades orders of magnitude faster than everybody else. _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
I'm still interested in the question "Can you use entangled qbits and markets separated by at least milliseconds to (probabilistically) profit in a way that isn't possible classically?" Unfortunately I have no idea what the answer is. --Michael On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Eugene Salamin <gene_salamin@yahoo.com>wrote:
I think this thread is diffusing away from mathematics and into politics.
-- Gene
________________________________ From: Jason <jason@lunkwill.org> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:20:52 AM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Plenty of Room at the Bottom, Part II
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Steve Witham wrote:
The question boils down to whether the rules under which trading occurs are fair. If so, behavior that makes profit for the trader is also doing the market as a whole a service.
Do you mean fair to the privileged class of high-speed traders, or fair to the market as a whole? If it's the latter, then the claim is rather tautological. If it's the former, then why does "profitable for high-speed traders" imply "good for the market as a whole"?
...
The question of fairness vs. gaming is not about whether any Joe off the street, or a member of just any species on the planet, no matter how slow its clock cycle, has an equal chance of making a fulfilling living as a trader. Those of us in the rest of the economy should not be trying to insure that old firms, business models, individuals, species, algorithms and chip generations are protected against upstarts or startups.
I agree about that, however I'm not sure why we should necessarily allow traders to implement schemes that let them make trades orders of magnitude faster than everybody else.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.
The only way to profit is to claim such a technology, and then find investors who think you are using it. I'm pretty sure that will work. On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Michael Kleber wrote:
I'm still interested in the question "Can you use entangled qbits and markets separated by at least milliseconds to (probabilistically) profit in a way that isn't possible classically?" Unfortunately I have no idea what the answer is.
--Michael
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Eugene Salamin <gene_salamin@yahoo.com
wrote:
I think this thread is diffusing away from mathematics and into politics.
-- Gene
________________________________ From: Jason <jason@lunkwill.org> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:20:52 AM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Plenty of Room at the Bottom, Part II
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Steve Witham wrote:
The question boils down to whether the rules under which trading occurs are fair. If so, behavior that makes profit for the trader is also doing the market as a whole a service.
Do you mean fair to the privileged class of high-speed traders, or fair to the market as a whole? If it's the latter, then the claim is rather tautological. If it's the former, then why does "profitable for high-speed traders" imply "good for the market as a whole"?
...
The question of fairness vs. gaming is not about whether any Joe off the street, or a member of just any species on the planet, no matter how slow its clock cycle, has an equal chance of making a fulfilling living as a trader. Those of us in the rest of the economy should not be trying to insure that old firms, business models, individuals, species, algorithms and chip generations are protected against upstarts or startups.
I agree about that, however I'm not sure why we should necessarily allow traders to implement schemes that let them make trades orders of magnitude faster than everybody else.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush. _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
TK, you have hit the nail on the head with this answer. Here is an example of somebody that is doing just this in the energy business. http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.shtml "Since certain proprietary catalysts cause the hydrogen atoms to transition to lower-energy states by allowing their electrons to fall to smaller radii around the nucleus with a release of energy that is intermediate between chemical and nuclear energies, the primary application is as a new primary energy source. Specifically, energy is released as the electrons of hydrogen atoms are induced by a catalyst to transition to lower-energy levels (i.e. drop to lower base orbits around each atom's nucleus). The lower-energy atomic hydrogen product called "hydrino" reacts with another reactant supplied to the reaction cell to form a hydride ion bound to the other reactant to constitute a novel proprietary compound. Alternatively, two hydrinos react to form a very stable hydrogen-type molecule called molecular hydrino. Thus, rather than pollutants the byproducts may have significant advanced technology applications based on their stability characteristics. For example, hydrino hydride ions having extraordinary binding energies may stabilize a cation (positively-charged ion of a battery) in an extraordinarily high-oxidation state as the basis of a high-voltage battery. Further, significant applications exist for the corresponding molecular hydrino wherein the excited vibration-rotational levels could be the basis of a UV laser that could significantly advance photolithography and line-of-sight telecommunications. A plasma-producing cell based on the extraordinarily energetic BlackLight Process has also been developed that may have commercial applications in chemical plasma processing and as a light source. BlackLight has license agreements with companies to use its patented commercial processes and systems in heating and electric power generation, and is negotiating further power licenses as well licenses for chemical and laser products." In summary, they claim to be able to catalyze electrons in hydrogen to fall below the ground state and release energy. If you browse their web site, you will see that they present very impressive scientific credentials, at least impressive to someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics. -- Gene ________________________________ From: Thomas Knight <tk@csail.mit.edu> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Cc: Thomas Knight <tk@csail.mit.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:19:16 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Plenty of Room at the Bottom, Part II The only way to profit is to claim such a technology, and then find investors who think you are using it. I'm pretty sure that will work. On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:45 PM, Michael Kleber wrote:
I'm still interested in the question "Can you use entangled qbits and markets separated by at least milliseconds to (probabilistically) profit in a way that isn't possible classically?" Unfortunately I have no idea what the answer is.
--Michael
Without disagreeing with anything that Eugene wrote, I'd like to point out that Mills' electrons are not even consistent with classical electrodynamics. Mills' theory is _advertised_ to appeal to those with a distrust of QM, (I have had first-hand interaction with these clowns on Wikipedia) but the funny part is that in order to believe in Mills' atomic "physics", you have to abandon all critical analysis under classical physics too. (The legerdemain begins in their model of the electron, with the claim that the electric field is perpendicular to a surface charge. A more rigorous phrasing would emphasize that the electric field is perpendicular to a surface charge _that is free to move under the influence of any non-perpendicular field_. Alas, they fix the charge distribution and still try to claim a perpendicular field. And no, the proposed charge distribution does not coincidentally yield a perpendicular field.) John Aspinall Eugene Salamin wrote:
... Here is an example of somebody that is doing just this in the energy business.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.shtml
... If you browse their web site, you will see that they present very impressive scientific credentials, at least impressive to someone who doesn't understand quantum mechanics.
participants (6)
-
Eugene Salamin -
Jason -
John Aspinall -
Michael Kleber -
Steve Witham -
Thomas Knight