A new sandpit for long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on.
To be clear, the sandpit is for regular commenters to pursue points that distract from regular discussion, including conspiracy-theoretic takes on the issues at hand. It’s not meant as a forum for visiting conspiracy theorists, or trolls posing as such.
26 thoughts on “Sandpit”
Just read a book about the oil industry in the USA and UK. The close links between oil executives and politicians is very concerning. Even if Biden and whomsoever is the next British PM push their climate change agendas, there are members of the US Congress and Westminster that are getting rich from oil bribes. It seems hopeless to expect an end to price gouging in the oil industry. Excessive profits are the only concern for the majors and they will defend those profits by using their political puppets. There is this immoral certainty among some oil executive that they can feather their own nests despite the urgent need to get the price of oil down worldwide.
I would like to talk about mathematics. (I’ll definitely get back to Gregory J. McKenzie’s post which raises important issues.)
Hopefully, there are quite a few people who read this blog, who have some ability at mathematics, and would like to comment on my comments about mathematics. First, indulge me as I briefly recount my mathematics biography.
My Senior (Grade 12) Results (way back in 1971) on the old scale of 1 to 7 with a 7 being like a high-school High Distinction, I guess.
Math I: 5
Math II: 4
I think we can see a pattern here. The Math II result suggests a problem. Maybe I was and am too unintelligent for harder math. Or maybe there was another issue. I used arithmetic and basic math for the rest of my life but I steadfastly and easily avoided the need to do any harder math.
Now I am thinking, at age 68, about the idea of trying to teach myself a little real math again. No fool like an old fool! Reason one, I am interested as a layperson in Political Economy and Philosophy. I can make (mostly vapid and facile) word arguments all day (in writing and of course not good arguments) but as soon as certain math comes into it I get both flummoxed and dismissive. I have a terrible case of mixed math hatred / math envy.
I’ve been watching a bit of Sabine Hossenfelder recently on Youtube. Her presentation “What are Differential Equations and how do they work?” really got me interested. I didn’t (couldn’t?) follow all the math, at least not quickly and easily on one viewing, but something she said got me really interested. I almost had an epiphany. If only someone had explained to my 16 year old self that this was why we did such math and how it linked to the world and to all the other subjects I was good at! I might have listened. I might also have been too gormless at that age to pay any attention any way. I can never know.
Hossenfelder’s key statement refers to calculating (or estimating or predicting) change over time, in every field where we are interested in doing such. It completely links up with all hard science of course and key aspects of political economy and even with philosophy.
I am going to have to teach myself. I probably should do a refresher in “mere” algebra. But I only found an old “Elementary Calculus” book by P. Bowman in my bookshelf. New Edition – 1936! So long as no conventions or notation styles have changed this should be alright?
In Chapter 1 – Functions. Limits., I was scratching my head before the end of page 1 but I made some progress.
Ex.1. If f(x) = 2(x sqrd) – 3x +1, evaluate (f(2), f(1), f(-1).
I got these three simple ones correct, with a little bit of effort (so rusty) but no cheating.
f(2) = 3.
f(1) = 0.
f(-1) = 6.
Then, I was flummoxed by (as part of the same question) express f(2+h) in ascending powers of h. I had to look at the workings and answer to see how the author got the answer. First I realized that (2+h) had to be substituted for each x in the function. Then I had to work out how (2+h) squared became (4 + 4h + h squared). Yes folks, that’s how dimwitted I am these days. I could not recall ever being taught how to do this. Eventually, with the answer in front of me, I thought of long multiplication of hundreds, tens and units. Do it that way, I figured. It’s like multiplying each column and adding them in one expression. I am embarrassed to say this felt like a revelation to me.
The next exercise really shattered me, even with the hints the author gave (before answers).
2. If f(x) = x squared – 7x, solve the equation f(x) = f(3).
This introduces concepts I don’t remember from high school. Did we who are old(-ish) learn this in high school?
Author’s Hint: Note first that one root of the given equation is known. For, if we put x = 3 on this equation we get f(3) = f(3), which is true. Therefore x = 3 satisfies the equation. (Fair enough, I do see that as obvious once it is shown to me but what are the further imports of this?)
After some workings, which are clear in themselves… the author notes: “Since x = 3 satisfies this equation, x – 3 is a factor of the left hand side by the Factor Theorem in Algebra.”
Whoa, I don’t remember this from high school either. Am I forgetting again? Then more workings and three answers for the question. I won’t tell you. I now have to nut out what this means and go googling etc. to try and understand what the Factor Theorem in Algebra (and associated concepts) are. Have I forgotten too much grade 12 math to teach myself cold from this book I wonder? Should I find a simpler starter book in algebra (Grade 12 or Grade 10)? I know I can do very simple algebra but maybe I need to re-fresh right through basic algebra first?
Any suggestions from the mathematicians? This is a possible mental interest to stop me getting bored in a lot of self-imposed lock-down. My wife has health preconditions and I ain’t young. I have our seemingly massive landscaping project to keep me physically occupied and fit. But TV is hopeless and reading and movies just can’t hold me at the moment for some reason. And unless I can illuminate my paltry attempts at understanding political economy and philosophy with some math there seems to be one leg of the three-legged seat of understanding somehow missing. I feel the absence. Understanding teeters.
One interesting development recently has been the creation of a high-level but unofficial Overshoot Commission to draw up plans for dealing with the now highly probable failure to cut global GHG emissions fast enough to meet the 1.5 degree C target. Website: https://www.overshootcommission.org/english
The chair is Pascal Lamy, a famously tough and abrasive French “grand commis de l’Etat”, former Commissioner in Brussels, DG of the WTO, etc. etc. I suspect he feels he missed out on the great Paris COP21 in 2015, and has spotted overshoot as an opportunity to play on centre court one last time. He’s assembled a team of other unemployed leaders, with the support and presumably funding of the French foreign policy establishment. The group includes Laurence Tubiana, one of the heroines of Paris, who has nothing to prove in climate policy and would not I think have accepted a role as a rubber stamp. They have a serious-looking group of scientific advisers.
Lamy needs no lessons in bureaucratic infighting and political wheeler-dealing. His problem will be in listening to people like Greta Thunberg. Green activists are very suspicious of carbon sequestration, which they see as a ploy by fossil fuel industries to keep polluting. It’s a very real risk, but IMHO the oilmen have to be fought off without burning down the drawbridge.
It’s good that the Commission sees the problem as a political and economic one. Others will have to move technology forward. So I wrote to them on the off chance the have not yet settled their approach. Text on my vanity site: http://www.jameswimberley.es/Notes/Overshoot%20Commission%20Lamy%20let.html .
What do you think?
(JQ: please disregard earlier version with the whole text here, blocked by the software presumably as too long)
Curious, i´m supposed to know that stuff for an econ math test in 4 weeks, along with some other stuff that typically isnt even in the math/physics master curiculum in Germany. Remind me again why it was a good idear to learn aat the national distance uninversity with its status envy as occupational theraphy…..
Not sure in your case mate. But make every post a personal winner if you can. From my perspective now, I think Hard Science depends on “hard math” (obviously) and Philosophy and Political Economy also have an intersection with hard math. However without deep thought and getting the ontology (what exists at base in each soft science discipline and how it exists) right, the application of math to almost anything can become a completely spurious and often ideological exercise.
My interest at this stage is that I need a new obsessive-compulsive mental distraction to take my mind off how horrendous the world really is. Math has that pure, abstract, absorbing and problem-solving aspect. Then if one needs to or wants to, one can connect it to other stuff but hopefully in an ontologically valid manner. I’m going to try to get myself addicted to math. (I have an addictive personality.) It’s going to be hard to do this because I’ve always hated it. It won’t be advanced math but if it is hard enough for me, this approach might just work as a mental distraction.
J.Q, has written extensively on nuclear power and CCS as boondoggles (my word). I happen to agree with him. The climate crisis is now. Coal and oil have to be phased out as fast as they can technically (technologically and scientifically) be replaced. The wealth rights of coalmen and oilmen (for want of a better term) and of all wealthy people with financial interests in same must receive absolutely zero consideration. Definition of wealthy in this context, I would say a net worth above US$ 2 million.
Ikonoclast, math puzzles will be your friend. As opposed to just worked examples.
And if everything was presented as per this Brett Victor fully interactive example the world would be a better place imo. See links at end as well. I want every policy & problem scenario genarator to be presented as;
As I have mentioned before at 14 I rebelled due to theocratic militaristic boys school. So I am exactly where you are.
And I need visuals which many of these sites adjunct with examples.
After geometry, trig, 3d area, algrebra, exponentials then surds. When you can simplify, derive, substitute and manage surds you’ll be able to cope with most papers and basic calculus.
When working with engineers doing system dynamics models, I would ask them to simplify equations down to arithmetic. My version of the model contained another set of variables which when the funder asked “what happens in that” I had a breakout box and we could step through algrbra or calculus. Invaluable. I have no such resource at hand anymore.
I do now have a secret weapon at hand. At home I get to ask my yr9 kid now. When stuck – and I get stuck in algebra – and I can’t solve, my child is able to teach me! You have no idea how thrilled and gratified I am having a child do this with me.
I do suggest stepping through curriculum from yr 7. With a site which tracks progress so you are presented with an appropriate next example each time but not too far.
NSW Educ uses:
… which also hosts Yr 7-12 maths by the wonderful Eddie Woo.
We also find understanding and easy explanations at
And Mathisfun has a math & logic puzzles page which defines a real world textural example problems and solutions. Most seem tricky yet force your brain to think in math…
And when confident to tackle calculus, remember the classic 1910…
“In this article, we’ll talk about what square roots are used for and how they fit into various equations and formulas. We’ll also give some examples to make the concepts clear.
“Let’s get started (you can watch a video version of this article on
“Square Roots In Finance
In the field of finance, we can use square roots to find the rate of return on an asset over a time period with 2 units (for example, 2 years, 2 months, etc.)
The formula for the annual rate of return over a 2 year time period is given by:
R = √(V2 / V0) – 1
where R is the annual rate of return, V0 is the starting value, and V2 is the value after 2 years.
Example 1: Rate Of Return Of An Asset Over 2 Years
Let’s say that you buy a stock on January 1, 2020 for $100.
You sell the stock on January 1, 2022 for $196.
This means that:
V0 = 100 (you bought the stock for $100)
V2 = 196 (you sold the stock for $196)
Since the time period was 2 years (January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2022), we can use the formula for annual rate of return over 2 years to get:
R = √(V2 / V0) – 1R = √(196 / 100) – 1R = √(1.96) – 1R = 1.4 – 1R = 0.4
As a decimal, R = 0.4 means an annual return of 40% (move the decimal 2 places to the right to convert a decimal to a percent).
So, the stock returned 40% annually, which is a good investment.
And my fave, and if I become el presedentè, all will be presented as Explorable Explanations.
Brett Victor is my hero:
Go for it.
Thank you for the link, James.
From the bleachers, is there no chance that someone could find something useful to make, out of the carbon they remove? Apologies if that’s a dumb question. (I don’t have much grasp of how this is actually going to happen.)
And there’s always guilt. Guilt can be a powerful motivator. It is the richer countries which have mostly created the problem, right? Maybe we could learn to have fewer wars, and do this instead. Asking people to spend money on a new, expensive technology, assuming it would work (and it sounds like you think it will …) somehow seems an easier lift than just telling people to consume less and walk around in a hairshirt. (Do they still make hairshirts? don’tworryI’llgoggleit … )
James, as usual from you, an eloquent and diplomatic note, replete with references to history, placing my knowledge and writing ability in stark relief. My favourite phrase “… such as (I venture to say) yourself,” – smooth.
Yet even Google couldn’t find a link to “Thélèmist principles” to enlighten me. Unusual.
Searching “Thélèmist” only produced 3 potentials in French. And Wikipedia reduces “Thélèmist principles” to “Thelema (/θəˈliːmə/) is a Western esoteric and occult social or spiritual philosophy and new religious movement founded in the early 1900s by Aleister Crowley (1875–1947),”.
I doubt Aleister Cowley is your conception.
And searching “Versailles vs. Thélème” leads to assasins creed!
Is “The Life of Gargantua and of Pantagruel” where I can find “Thélèmist” principles?
“The full modern English title for the work commonly known as Pantagruel is The Horrible and Terrifying Deeds and Words of the Very Renowned Pantagruel King of the Dipsodes, Son of the Great Giant Gargantua”.
Principles, as in “”Pantagruelism”, a form of stoicism, developed and applied throughout, is (among other things) “a certain gaiety of spirit confected in disdain for fortuitous things”” Wikipedia.
If not, I would appreciate a link to an English reference if you have one.
Finding uses to contain CO2 makes your statememt “This suggests a Thélèmist strategy of letting a hundred flowers bloom in research and exploring all possible avenues, including modest investment in eccentric long shots on the DARPA model” entirely appropriate.
Co2. A wicked problem.
Time to tap those crypto gazillionaires.
Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) article and 11,000 paper (!) meta study.
“These uses of CO2 could cut emissions — and make trillions of dollars
“From concrete to fuels, CO2 from the air can replace CO2 from the ground.
“This is part three of a four-part series on carbon capture and utilization (CCU),…”
“The questions are drawn from a giant literature review on CCU, recently released in the journal Nature, which assessed over 11,000 papers and was accompanied by an expert opinion survey. It helps bring into clear focus the key metrics involved in appraising these technologies.”
“(There are lots of different ways of dividing them up; my list is a bit of a mash-up of the Nature paper referenced above and this exhaustive 2016 roadmap…
conducted by Lux Research
for the Global CO2 Initiative.)”
“The technological and economic prospects for CO2utilization and removal
“The capture and use of carbon dioxide to create valuable products might lower the net costs of reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Here we review ten pathways for the utilization of carbon dioxide. Pathways that involve chemicals, fuels and microalgae might reduce emissions of carbon dioxide but have limited potential for its removal, whereas pathways that involve construction materials can both utilize and remove carbon dioxide.”
Nature volume 575, pages 87–97 (2019)
I do like the differential equations as such! Really. And i also know why i picked that distance University. The private ones often really got ridiculous low academic standard and are outside my budget for a course here and there. Nothing wrong with the differential equations, expect that they have no place in what is essentially just 5 ects credit math2 for business administration. There is just an unhealthy tendency of some ambitious lower status insitutions to demand more and grade harder than the higher status ones, which puts me in the situation that my motivation has to be 100% intrinsic.
Consider this and the last post a self binding declaration to learn some and actually write the test this term, take the C- or F for that matter, be done with it.
Thank you for the considerable effort you have gone to, to point out all those wonderful resources to me. I will explore them in depth and find the resources most suited to me for my self-teaching.
The world is very odd at the moment (let’s leave it at that) and I need a non-harmful mental escape to deal with my depression and anger, about it all, which got pretty obvious in a few of my recent posts. Which doesn’t mean I will cease from other necessary tasks from landscaping and mowing to helping with cooking, cleaning and washing. However, it seems at the mental level I need the most abstract escape possible which just might be math. And I do want to re-learn and push on a bit. I said to myself I have read n great novels, n books of political economy and n books of philosophy (but only ones where math and logic notation appear little if at all) yet somehow I am at a personal mental impasse. It’s the abstract escape I think I am seeking and opening an area I haven’t traveled before.
Some might say it could have no practical result for me. Yet the most practical result of all is stop my mind building its current kind of prison and seek a new window to possibly new understandings. And it’s occupational therapy if I can get myself to dig it. I’ve seem some hopeful signs that I can dig it a bit, not just in understanding but finding the mental gymnastics fun.
Thanks again, cheers.
Ikon, thanks. My bucket list has “mathatician /syatem dynamist / engineer” on it. I have about as much chance or reaching that goal as I have of making a rocket and flying to the moon. But give me the rocket…
I was / am a quasi racing bike / car driver. Nearly was real one in my youth until a broken tibia & femur ceased my speed demons. I can still do a lap aroud Bathurst on a proper racing sim of 1:04. Only actual racing deivers can still get better lap times.
I cannot design an engine. Tune a chassis. Make a tyre. But I have enough knowledge of of the whole system of racing machines to go back to the pits and tell the bloody engineers that what “worked on paper” didn’t work on the track and fix it by trial and error. And I have heard so many internal combustion engines I was able to diagnose most destructive faults by ear, singling out a component or system before during and after failure. Experience by osmosis not engineering or mathmatics.
So when I read about a successful system dynamics model by Dr Gary Saliba at the ATO being then hard coded into ATO systems I was gobsmacked. I was able to ‘see’ the stocks , flows and equations and “drive” the model.
I immediately set about working with the Australian distrubtor of Stella/ithink. Best learning I ever had. Serious models of renewables in the early 90’s. Ecoligical economics models via Rod Gill at UNE. I was able to drive predator prey models. I got it. And I had on hand the math /;engineer / ecologist / economist to explain adjust and nuance. Invaluable.
Eventually 3 years later I started employing the experts at -gulp- $1,750 per day plus expenses! But of course ran into my first level of incompetence, lost a relationship and went tree seed picking in the NT.
I even funded an aerospace engineer who had worked at Nasa on the spacelab, to develop his home made system dynamics “web aware” software, which was better than stella/ ithink. But I could not control the engineer. Nir take over. Not even with $250k on the table! Too smart for his own good, unable to be realistic, and it never saw the light of day.
So my point is, by getting a grasp in the math you will at least be able to “drive” – a scenario, ask the model builder why x doesn’t match your x, and make for a better real world scenario from a given study, paper or (groan) a finance / business model. Ala Henery Ford.
But I loathed the rich and powerful as did the aerospace engineer.
The consulting engineers liked the challenge of solving puzzles not saving the world. One of the best 2 went to work for McKinzie & Co, the other won a prime ministers award for the F1-11 Fleet model. To me they were like hired guns of the wild west. Faster on the draw, took the money but never stuck around.
You said “finding the mental gymnastics fun” which is exactly why I liked the engineers and SD models. Plus I’d never earned as much money prior.
You said “It’s the abstract escape I think I am seeking and opening an area I haven’t traveled before” which is why I am here as I never got my head around “economics”.
But your’s and my dementia onset will be delayed. What more could we ask for!
Impressive CV. I have nothing to stack up against that. I’m not stupid but neither am I highly intelligent. And I think I am just average on that “empirical osmosis quotient” which you clearly had and have. But at least with cars and machinery I knew I was average and operated them well within my competence and their limits. Of course, when I attempt to critique Professors of Economics, it’s Dunnings-Kruger flat to the floor, all the way down the main straight and into the hay bales at the first corner.
“The Dunning-Kruger Effect May Be a Statistical Illusion
“Research finds the effect is statistically due to other psychological factors.
““It does not matter how slowly you go, as long as you don’t stop”.
Going slow still sees a finish line.
And Ikon, it is not a CV. It was luck and right place right time. I just kept away from a “career” and authority after horrid school and an apprenticeship allowing me to be opportunistic.
It I’d had kids say, in my 20’s I would not have done any of it.
The source is Rabelais, Gargantua, Chapter 1.LVII.—How the Thelemites were governed, and of their manner of living. Full texts at
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1200/1200-h/1200-h.htm#link2HCH0054, French http://ekladata.com/sS4_WZMXxOjM3wXAiuroxebW60A/1532-Gargantua-et-Pantagruel1-Rabelais-frances.pdf
“All their life was spent not in laws, statutes, or rules, but according to their own free will and pleasure. They rose out of their beds when they thought good; they did eat, drink, labour, sleep, when they had a mind to it and were disposed for it. None did awake them, none did offer to constrain them to eat, drink, nor to do any other thing; for so had Gargantua established it. In all their rule and strictest tie of their order there was but this one clause to be observed,
Do What Thou Wilt
because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour. Those same men, when by base subjection and constraint they are brought under and kept down, turn aside from that noble disposition by which they formerly were inclined to virtue, to shake off and break that bond of servitude wherein they are so tyrannously enslaved; for it is agreeable with the nature of man to long after things forbidden and to desire what is denied us.”
It’s a shame that the nice Greek word for “will” thelema, the heart’s desire, was misappropriated by a pair of Satanist crackpots, Dashwood and Crowley. In both the Septuagint and the New Testament, the word is used dozens of times in reference to the divine will, not boulé, which is more or less “plan”.
Iko: you exhibit my point perfectly. The flue gas CCS boondoggle has poisoned the well and most Greens like yourself will not yet listen to the compelling rational case for sequestration. But mark my words: after another couple of years at over 1.25 degrees of warming, which is where we are now, you and JQ will both be marching for it, done properly this time. You will be grateful that Pascal Lamy and in a tiny way yours truly have begun the great work.
What is the great work? Not being sarcastic, just asking what the work technically is. What method(s) of sequestration are being (a) envisaged and (b) put into action? In principle and in practice, I would not be against a work, an approach, if I thought (assessed) it was not a boondoggle.
The sequestration method must be materially and energetically supportable and sustainable. It must actually work and be a permanent store of sequestered CO2 and not a temporary store, at least on the human civilizational scale. It ought to be stable and dependable for hundreds of years at a bare minimum and probably for thousands to tens of thousands of years.
James, thanks. You might consider posting your letter in;
“Is there a democratic path to civilizational survival?”
…”When I set about enumerating those crises, I have a sneaking fear that I may have forgotten one or two of them, but this looks like a reasonable list:
– Climate change and the risk that global temperatures will rise so much that it will be difficult to sustain life anywhere near the equator and so that life in coastal areas will be overwhelmed by sea-level rise.”…
We have amnesia re honour…
“Do What Thou Wilt
because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour.”.
Sequestration imo is a bit like a new drug, works well in theory and tests, but no long term baseline. “They” have “found” stable sites off the Gulf of Mexico. Tell me in 100 years with the real world outcome.
I think sequestration is a time waster, something for the politician to point at, as if it is solving the problem. The issue is that if we trigger the tipping points for various climatic features to either disappear, or to radically grow, a simple reversal of the GHG concentrations (say, by sequestration—if it was cost effective) would not reverse those triggered tipping points; the damage would already have been set in train, and that’s that. This failure to appreciate hysteresis of various climate systems means we’ve gambled on not triggering tipping points, including a number of scenarios we’ve perhaps not given sufficiently diligent analysis, at least at the level of political layer of human society. Collapse of ice sheets, sudden release of clathrate gases, methane emissions from thawing permafrost, loss of plant life, especially forest and jungle, etc., have their thresholds beyond which the system responds in an effectively irreversible manner, or at least not reversible on the kind of time scales of interest to dozens of future generations of people.
Think of a dam full of water, and just a little bit more rain into the catchment results in water getting under the dam or around the edges of it, and suddenly it all goes boom, flushing dam wall and a torrential wall of water into the canyon and river system downstream. Downstream communities are wiped out. No amount of evaporation will put that dam wall back where it was, or put the water back into the dam. The damage is done.
Don said “sequestration is a time waster, ”
If this happens sequestration will be more than a time waster.
Don, here is another effect to add to your list.. The slowest butterfly wing flap – continental drift -, climate change and ocean circulation.
And I am gobsmacked we have not done a 3d model before!
“In theory, Ridgwell said an unusually warm summer or the erosion of a cliff could trigger a cascade of processes that upends life as it appears today.” PhysOrg
“Sleeping giant could end deep ocean life
“… said Ridgwell. “We were not expecting to find that the movement of continents could cause surface waters and oxygen to stop sinking, and possibly dramatically affecting the way life evolved on Earth.”
“The paper does not address if or when Earth might expect a similar event in the future, and it is difficult to identify when a collapse might occur, or what triggers it. However, existing climate models confirm that increasing global warming will weaken ocean circulation, and some models predict an eventual collapse of the branch of circulation that starts in the North Atlantic.
“We’d need a higher resolution climate model to predict a mass extinction event,” Ridgwell said. “That said, we do already have concerns about water circulation in the North Atlantic today, and there is evidence that the flow of water to depth is declining.”
“Continental configuration controls ocean oxygenation during the Phanerozoic
“The absence, in our modelling, of any simple correlation between global climate and ocean ventilation, and the occurrence of profound variations in ocean oxygenation independent of atmospheric pO2, presents a challenge to the interpretation of marine redox proxies, but also points to a hitherto unrecognized role for continental configuration in the evolution of the biosphere. ”
JQ is probably the only person reading this who can answer this question.
Does this paper – “COMPARING BEHAVIORAL MODELS USING DATA FROM EXPERIMENTAL CENTIPEDE GAMES” challenge or alter Flavio Menezes & John Quiggin, 2007. “Games without Rules,”? (^2.)
“COMPARING BEHAVIORAL MODELS USING DATA FROM EXPERIMENTAL CENTIPEDE GAMES
Economic Inquiry 58(3)
…”We find that introducing non‐Expected Utility preferences to the Quantal Response Equilibrium model, along with a nonlinear utility function, provides a better explanation compared to alternative specifications such as the Level‐k or the Quantal Response Equilibrium model with altruistic motives.”
Flavio Menezes & John Quiggin, 2007.
“Games without Rules,”
“We then characterize the Nash equilibria arising in such extensions and demonstrate a folk-type theorem stating that any individually rational element of the outcome space is a Nash equilibrium.”
Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(4), pages 315-347, December
My question obviously shows my level of knowledge and current ability. Lucky me. Probability of answer 10-1
Probability of detailed answer w explanation 100-1.
I have a hard time writing differential equations for non linear dynamics. I’m really good at hide and seek and catchings balks tho, And now I’d love to know my backward inference space.
My first favourite JEL Classification –
D91 – Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
Try interpretating this one! Nudge level – ONE pixel.
And careful what you click on as; “Algorithms have been carefully trained to predict stimulus-driven salience values for each pixel in any image. The economic question we address is …”
“Predictable Effects of Visual Salience in Experimental Decisions and Games
“Algorithms have been carefully trained to predict stimulus-driven salience values for each pixel in any image. The economic question we address is whether these salience values help explain economic decisions. Our first experimental analysis shows”
“Applications to behavioral IO, price and tax salience, nudges and design, and visually influenced beliefs are suggested.”
Zuckerburg, gaming machine (pokies) manufacturers will be all over this to trick – oops – nudge you towards Meta Facebooks “Expected Utility of profit maximization”.
The working class is back!
Ikon, It’s time to read & watch;
What’s Wrong with Capitalism (Part 1) | ContraPoints
What’s Wrong with Capitalism (Part 2) | ContraPoints
“After some workings, which are clear in themselves… the author notes: “Since x = 3 satisfies this equation, x – 3 is a factor of the left hand side by the Factor Theorem in Algebra.”
Whoa, I don’t remember this from high school either. Am I forgetting again?”
It sounds like she is just talking about simple quadratic equations. So the square root of 9 you know to be 3 right? But actually it can also be negative 3. You would have done these quadratic equations at the age of 15. Its called linear algebra and you wouldn’t think it was necessary but its a precursor to calculus. So you need to go over it again if you want to then learn integration and differentiation to do calculus. Sounds a bit complicated but you would have done it over half a century ago.