a few links

[spoonless]

Is the Efficient Market Hypothesis equivalent to P=NP? Bizarre (and probably wrong) but intriguing idea:
http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/abs/1002.2284

Nice visual representation of 2011 budget breakdown:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

The Dalai Lama on Technological Change:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CgZ2qkRSpo

I have a ticket to see the Dalai Lama speak in person 2 months from now in Indiana. I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say. In the above link, he sounds a lot like a transhumanist when he says he thinks one day humans should be improved by becoming part machine and "that would be good". Out of context I can't tell what exactly he means by that. But it's an interesting comment.

Comments

[easwaran.livejournal.com]

Not having read this particular discussion about the connection between EMH and P=NP, I would have thought that EMH was much stronger. Just as you can come up with market problems that are NP-complete, it seems to me that you should be able to come up with non-Turing-computable market problems, so that full efficient markets would be required to solve uncomputable problems. Perhaps there's a natural way to reduce the logical strength needed by weakening the EMH, but I should think about this.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

I would have thought that EMH was much stronger. Just as you can come up with market problems that are NP-complete, it seems to me that you should be able to come up with non-Turing-computable market problems, so that full efficient markets would be required to solve uncomputable problems.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying, but I think you must be addressing an entirely different issue from what this paper is addressing.

His claim is that you can solve any problem in NP in polynomial time just by placing trades on the open market and watching what happens to the asset prices, if the weakest efficient market hypothesis is true. Conversely, he also claims that if P=NP, then the weak efficient market hypothesis must be true (this seems far more believable).

So when you say you'd have thought the EMH is "must stronger", are you talking about the strong EMH (if so, he's not even considering that in the paper)? And assuming you think it's plausible that the weak EMH is true, do you really think you can exploit that to solve NP-hard problems?