/sci/ - Science & Math

>advanced economics

._.

>>1043684
my point exactly
you clearly have no conception of what an advanced economics course entails at a decent university

BECAUSE IT'S BORING AS FUCK

>>1043697

Correction: You believe Econ is boring.

>>1043697
stochastic calculus
convex analysis
etc
are all far more interesting than most stuff

fucking philistines

Ho ho, this is /sci/ not /new/

>>1043720
herp derp ur so funniez

Because economics fails if we just up and decide to not give a shit about money (which I gotta hope most scientists don't?)

>>1043740

"People might decide to completely destroy their way of life and stop using money! Therefore, Economics is shit!"

I hope you realize how stupid that sounds.

capitalism is a disease

skipping all advanced math and asset pricing ecomist are ppl who are modern prophets - they can foresee the changes that are invisible for others. Its mostly about money but also about ppl mass movements or actions

>>1043763

Not it is not

Also, while capitalism is part of economics, economics is not capitalism.

>>1043763
Capitalism stimulates progress, and thus science

Wouldn't have had an industrial revolution without capitalism

>clearly none of you have taken an advanced economics/asset pricing/credit risk course in your life

clearly none of those who had could apply their so-called science, to reality.

shit tier

Economics is like Theology
Disciplines that are approaching redundancy. Progress will cure them both.

>>1043783
i have friends at goldman, citi, deutche, renaissance, jane street, and de shaw who apply theoretical asset pricing models in reality every day and make billions of dollars

whats your point

>>1043796
dumbasses like you continue to make the point i made in my original post

Economics is a way to make a dickload of money.
I took it at A level, but beyond that i'm not too interested.
I think it's worth having a base knowledge of it though.

>>1043799
Sometimes they lose billions of dollars.
Overall, science suggests that there's them what get's lucky, and then there's them who get forgotten / move into other careers, and then there's the investment monkey with a dartboard who tends to do better over the long term given a level playing field.

>>1043802

No, progress will cure them both

>>1043825
any statistical test would show you that they make significant amounts of money at a level not allowable by sheer chance

again I fail to see your point

post scarcity.

where's your god now.

"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists."

Glorified historians. They record what people like and make flimsy guesses as to what may happen in the future.

Not being a dick, I'm sure your life is incredibly important OP, but that's just my view of economics in general.

>>1043842
>just my view

Plenty of research to back you up.

>>1043846

Yeah, that's why I said it's just my view. I view your shitty study of money as over-emphasized. If that get's your panties in a bunch, then I guess your panties are going to be in a bunch.

>>1043842
>flimsy guesses about the future

you really have no idea what you are talking about. like I said, you people have no idea what real economics entails.

>>1043853
WTF Dude - that was my first post ITT and I was backing you up. I is dissapoint.

>>1043825
Banks don't run risks
Part of banks is risk management, ways of making money without having any risk
It doesn't go wrong unless banks really fuck up by applying multiple models to each other and shit like that

>>1043864

Sorry hommie. I thought you were being sarcastic.

I just can't tell anymore. I offer this pic as a token of my apologies.

>>1043858
NB: Brother is macro economist. We talk. Predictive power of economics is like weather - accuracy rapidly descends to zero with time.

>>1043867
>Banks don't run risks

Precious, truly fucking precious.

>>1043897
why do the common masses think this way
hurr durr banks run risks look at economy now lolol

>>1043921

The common masses?

Troller, no trolling!

>>1043921
Because it's the truth. Sure, banks spend millions trying to avoid risk. EVIDENTLY WITHOUT SUCCESS.

It is irrational (read:stupid) to argue that banks were not running risks in the leadup to the crisis. Furthermore, history across the world is littered with government bank bailouts (just not normally all at once) as a result of banks running risks they had no awareness of.

>>1043942
it is controlled risk

you have to risk to gain since there is almost no arbitrage in the market since it is self correcting

>>1043947
WTF is controlled, if, when the control fails, the impact is minimal. Fuck you're a smart wee troll, but I refuse to believe you are as dumb as you appear.

>>1043683
Because it propagates an unnecessary and damaging system that is why and no matter how many moderately hard maths courses you take for it it will still be shit tier.
/thread

>>1043963
moderately hard

lol bro any decent asset pricing course uses real analysis, convex analysis, stochastic calculus, PDE's, etc

gtfo with your bullshit. the fact of the matter is those people working for hedgefunds take more math than you've likely seen

damaging system. again you know nothing, just gtfo

>>1043976
So you are telling me the economy is a good thing? One of my deepest rages is that people lack the will too pull of a proper communism system or a red robin economy.

>>1043976
also 7/10 for this post

>>1043983
free market is everything

it is the driving force behind all production, technological development, scientific discoveries, medical breakthroughs, etc

it doesn't take a genius to see what market freedom has done for mankind

>>1043976
Net hedge-fund profitability absent bubbles or other confluences is zero. Before about 5-10 years ago, there was tons of evidence to demonstrate this. Then the word and the markets went crazy, and everyone started making money. Nothing fundamental changed in the math, in the so-called science of economics. All that happened is a confluence of credit-for-all and limited energy resources.

>>1044019
you have no idea how much has changed in the past 10 years

coherent risk measure in particular has seen an explosion of development since the arrival of expected shortfall roughly 10 years ago

>>1044039
OP you cant convince someone who:
1. doesnt give a fuck
2. relies only on tv news and doesnt go deeper into relations between markets.
Its like the science vs religion thread - it wont work but were the science here.

bump cuz im bored

Why are all economists coming with opposing views? If there is some science to it, why all the contradictions, not just some arguing over semantics but total contradiction nearly always due to political views?

>>1044273
yes because scientist never have opposing ideas....

>>1044062
The person in question is not as ignorant as you choose to believe. Ultimately, this is science, and therefore the evidence should speak louder than theory.

because you cant make an economic experiment due its nature, also its very young branch of science having only about 120yrs therefore theres a lot of arguing about whats best - just like theres a lot of arguing in ie phisics about new stuff

economics doesn't make any logical sense to the scientific mind

why do i need money in order to buy equipment and pay employees so that i can conduct my experiments? why can't i just be given this? the work i could complete given (near) infinite resources would surely out-way the time and effort spent to conduct the research

fuck you economics

>>1044329
you really need to die.

I hate economists because they seem to fail.

We were just in a huge recession. Why didn't the economists predict it in time? Real science (physics, math, chem, bio, etc) never has recessions. We just keep on putzing along making breakthrough discoveries and revolutionizing the world.

If your answer to the above question is "economics doesn't work like that," or something along those lines, then you have ny answer, which is that economics doesn't behave like a science.

I would compare economics to meteorology, however, there are some major differences. They are similar in that they are both extremely volatile, heavily based on predictions, and subject to immediate change. However, meteorology can be advanced through more sophisticated equipment and a better understanding of weather conditions and such. Do economists invent new technology? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Looking at past Nobel Laureates, all the winners in economics have won for "his/her ANALYSIS of ____." Analysis? Shit, dude, I can do that. You know what I can't do? Discover the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics, like the 2008 Nobel winner in physics did. Real science figures shit out, while economics just examines and analyzes crap.

Also, economics is man-made (without people and people buying stuff, economics wouldn't exist). Without people, science would still exist. There would still be planets, atoms, gravity, etc.

My last, and most important point, economics is in the college of motherfucking BUSINESS!!!! Not engineering, not arts and science, not math... business.

I hope the volume of text conveys the fact that I am not a troll.

>>1044329
>why can't i just be given this? the work i could complete given (near) infinite resources would surely out-way the time

You moron. Economics is the science that tells us how to live and prosper in world that ppl has infinite needs but finite resources

Because economics in reality the economy is Dependant on scientific achievement not some doushcey businessmen.
Industrilized Machinery?Economy booms
Electricity? Economy booms
Computers? Economy booms
The internet? Economy booms

>>1044410
Actually, very little of the economics taught at undergrad level even touches on finite resources.

And natural resource economics is normally a fringe paper.

Am a little late to the fight but economics is essentially a human creation so that we can divvy up our planets natural resources, if we weren't so selfish or were communist(?) we would distribute our resources fairly to everyone without money and economics. Why can't the scientist just be given what he needs and in return he produces knowledge? Why can't the farmer grow food and be given other goods and services in exchange? The only thing economics and the economy does is generate waste and greed. Greed particularly is an inherent trait in economics, without it we wouldn't have recessions and no amount of control can stop this because a basic principle of economics is that everyone wants more.

>>1044378
>Looking at past Nobel Laureates, all the winners in economics have won for "his/her ANALYSIS of ____." Analysis? Shit, dude, I can do that.

wow. you're a shitty troll bro

It's a shame OP left the thread, I wanted to see the anguish as they realised they were fighting a battle never meant to be won. Oh well, /sci/ won, kudos.

>>1044586
<span class="math">\frac{1}{10}[/spoiler]

ITT: OP raging his head off, trying to justify the choice of such a shit tier, useless subject to study at university.

OP, why u mad?

If you don't understand the difficulty and importance of economics theory, then you're just being naive. (I'm talking real economics theory and not bond pricing)

Also, I'm a mathematician.

>>1044710

ITT: Aspergers kiddo trolling superiors on the internet while crying inside as he realises his choice of subject in the community college is both shitier and he cant even do it, and will probably end up in his mothers basement raging at the world at he "ECUNUMISTS R SHIT" while eating doritos and fapping angrily with his tears as lube

I ain't even mad bruv

>>1044767
Good fucking call Luke, yeah, goddamn community college. University of Edinburgh, Computer Science with specialization towards the field of artificial intelligence.

>>1044653
10/10

>>1044730
try bond pricing under Vasicek or CIR

its not exactly trivial

>>1044653
im still here bro
im just working my analysis set

>>1044796
Oh boy, wait, did I forgot to mention that the UoE is ranked 1st in Comp. Sci. in the UK? I

>>1044796

Who mad now bro ?

>>1044812
wow best in the UK
who gives a shit
my american school wipes the floor with your shit tier school

I can't believe you have the audacity to bash a financial engineer when you're a goddamn cs major

>>1044812
>>1044796

>implyine UoE is at all hard to get into
>implying that is a not shit tier glorified IT technician job with ARTIFICIUL INTELEGUNSH slapped on
>implying it is a tenth as complex as advanced economics

ohshitniggawtfrudoing.nif

>>1044378
11/10

>>1044820
>financial engineer

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA.

>>1044812
>>1044796

Did I forget to mention Economics in Oxford with 10% acceptance rate for the course boss ?

>>1044839
that's what they've been called for about the past 15 years

get with the times bro

>>1044830
>implyine UoE is at all hard to get into
>implying that is not a shit tier glorified IT technician job with ARTIFICIUL INTELEGUNSH slapped on
>implying it is a tenth as complex as advanced economics
>implying u not very very mad

>>1044820
>wow best in the UK
>who gives a shit

>The university is consistently placed amongst the best in the world, ranking 20th in the current THES - QS World University Rankings,[5][6] as well as 17th in the current Global University Ranking.
>The university is consistently placed amongst the best in the world

Oh well.

>>1044847
Only because they're butthurt when they're made fun of by real engineers.

>>1043867
>>1043897
dur no banks run risks- that's what banking is, taking risks with other peoples' money.
It also happens to be very economically useful

i took micro and macroecon for electives and found it incredibly interesting. It was number 4 on my list of preferred majors. Majoring in Comp Sci, and if that didnt work then was gonna do math, then physics, then econ

>>1044860
i got to a top 5 school
so yeah you're school is shit to me
keep bashing finance faggot

>>1043683
Economics should be in the shit tier because although it does have some good maths/stats in it, it's an evil temptress that steals good minds away from real science.

I should know, I'm a PhysicsPhag who had a PhD offer but instead went to work for a bank. Loads of chem/phys/eng/math friends have done the same. I think it's sad that /sci/fags can't make a decent living from science. The West is itself in the ass by letting clever people slip into irrelevant fields.

tl;dr, Despite its claims that it creates efficiency, economics if slowly fucking humanity.

>>1044850
Very few people getting the fuck out of UoE become IT "experts". Most of the graduates go to work in a lab for a year or two, then return to university to get their PhD, doing mostly research later in their life (mostly in AI and computer vision, everything that has to do with computers interacting with the nature).

>>1044862
real engineers
lol
real engineers can't do half the math financial engineers do or solve problems anywhere near as complex

if math is next to god as this board tends to hold true the finance is far above engineering, up there with math and physics

>>1044875
samefag:

>The West is *fucking* itself...

>>1044875
dont give a fuck how you feel about it being a temptress

im talking theoretical financial work phag not running of the Bridgewater and doing bitch quant work for years

i dont really think econ should be shit tier, but its too theoretical for these engineering faggots to respect like they do hard sciences

>>1044881
Difficulty of problems done isn't the question here. It's the "purity" of the math/science done. When you apply scientific/mathematic rules to social situations, you become a cock-loving social scientist. Social sciences are just as shit-tier as economics. (Not sure if econ is grouped with those or not.) You can't just say "HURR DUR I DO HARD MATHS IN RETARDED SITUATIONS, I'M GOD-TIER." Everything below mathematics and high-science on the tier diagram is because it's APPLIED science. Chemistry is applied physics to subatomic particles. Still high up there. REAL Engineering is applied sciences to REAL problems. Bridges, flow rates for reactors, making engines work, whatever. Applying math and science to MONEY, on the other hand, means you're using math and science to 'predict the future' of investments, or some other bullshit like that. You want to be taken seriously here? Switch to a real science. And don't say you don't care how you're taken here, if that was true, this thread wouldn't exist.

tl;dr, OP is a tremendous faggot, there is no such thing as financial engineering.

>>1044919

Sure is freshman year in here.

>>1044919
implying there's something different from creating a mathematical method and studying its structure vs creating a theoretical model to capture reality and then studying its structure

theres no difference faggot

>>1044378

Economics is listed as both a Physical Science and a Social Science in my school.

Economics & Math double major is really popular here.
Also, top school in Canada.

>>1044934
>Top school in Canada
>in Canada
>Canada

Enough said

>>1044919
there's no difference between real math (or pure math) in which one works withing a mathematical structure where the laws are governed by a set of invented axioms and studying its structure

vs creating a structure where the axioms are based off of things you witness in reality based on the financial markets, and then deriving theorems and thoroughly analyzing the structure

you'll realize this some day when your balls drop

>>1044919

Economics is applied math to solving REAL problems in the financial sector. The problem is, most fuckers *cough*Ben Bernanke*cough* suck at it, which is why the US economy was doing so bad a couple years ago. Economics requires similar thought processes as Actuarial Mathematics, so if Math is God tier, I don't understand how applied math can be shit tier.

>>1044944
I know there's no difference. But that's how the tiers are split on this board. So shut the fuck up, or get the fuck out and go fap to Gordon Tullock somewhere else.

And, I'm not mad. :)

>>1044940

Got a problem with Canada?

>>1044944
Too bad economics uses things it tries to prove as it's axioms.
Never mind the fact that most economic axioms can't really be said to have strong correlation with reality.

Economics is just social science with bullshit math to confuse the less perceptive. Even calling economics heuristics would be stretching it.

it takes human behavior as logical tries to find patterns in it.

the basic approach of this "science" is completely off and it will never do any good except to produce more misleading figures.

>>1044978
and somehow concepts like a riemannian manifold are closer to reality

gtfo troll

nothing is used to prove the axioms
they are assumed and the structure is analyzed in the same way as in pure math
the axioms are related to reality in much the same way many of the axioms of pure math are tied to reality

derp 2+2 =4
pure math field axioms

Physicists and Mathematicians make more money working for Investment Banks than they do in research/teaching.

/thread

>>1043683

Economics is shit tier in the same way as studying Sindarin is.

>>1044990
Pure math has axioms that have no place in discussing reality.
But you already knew this.
Just because something is mathematically correct doesn't mean it has any correlation with reality.

>>1045014
the earliest dabblings in number theory arose from the concept of numbers which is very much grounded in reality

manifold theory is a mathematicians way of analyzing real world 3 dimension objects

what are you trying to argue

pure math has axioms grounded in as much reality as do the axioms of the mathematical structures financial engineers work

Economics is the worst fucking waste of time on this planet. The last economics course I took was in high school. I majored in Inorganic Chem in college

>>1045021
>financial engineers

>>1045034
you took pussy level economics
that'd be akin to learning HOMO-LUMO interactions and solving shcrodinger for the hydrogen atom and saying

"derp inorganic chem is dumb this is a waste of time im done"

for the record no one gives a shit about your opinion

>>1045012
If you're a scientist, you don't care about how much money you're making.

/yourpoint

>>1045054
I know, I lol'd, too.

>>1045061

I don't think you're a scientist.

>>1045061
you gotta feed ur family kid
pull you head outta your ass
half the people in academia wouldn't be doing shit if it wasnt for the prestige and money

I know one nobel laurete who has his fucking medal with him all the time and always talks about it

I know another who bitches about why he isn't more famous and well known by the common man

just some food for thought

>>1045054
>>1045069
>>1044919

http://lfe.mit.edu/about/intro.htm

Yep, MIT is definitely more shit-tier than your community colleges.

>>1045071
Everything is done for money. But real scientists wouldn't take a bullshit economics job over a good research job, just for some extra money. It's not like you're living under the poverty line if you have a PhD.

>>1045083
No one gives a fuck about the colleges involved. It's about the science itself.

Such as, 'financial engineers' will never be regarded as real engineers, and economics will always be a shit-tier social science. So fuck off.

>>1045092
>It's not like you're living under the poverty line if you have a PhD.

Say that to my face, bitch, and see what happens.

>>1045098

Enjoy your community college and narrow world-view.

>>1045099
*If you're working in research.
Sorry, teach.

>>1045083
dont bother pandering to these faggots, they know nothing
>>1045092
lol at bullshit
it's just another stage on which to prove intellectual prowess which is why half of what people working at the top of their science fields are doing what they are doing. half is for the challenge 40% is for prestige 5% money 5% love of science

fuck off kid

>>1045101
Must make you mad, knowing that even community college physics is infinitely better than financial engineering.

>>1045114
must make you mad knowing you're at a community college

>>1045101
Oh, I will. Because I won't be studying to become a modern prophet.

By the way, I really like my community college. Here's their site.
http://berkeley.edu/

>>1045110
And suddenly the financial engineer becomes a prophet of psychology.

>>1045118
>berkeley
>4th best school in CA

must be nice sucking so much you couldn't go to one of the many better private schools in the state

>>1045120
its the way the world works bro
dealwithit

>>1045130
Try 4th best engineering school in the country, faggot.

>>1045098

honestly no real scientists have these massive ''omfg social sciences suck!" chips on their shoulders.

Most scientists are grown up and above this.

The only people who do have these opinions are the little high school seniors justifying taking AP physics instead of some other science.

>>1045136
at the graduate level scrub
my school is still far better, for both undergrad and grad

>>1045130
Also, that doesn't include 'financial engineering', bro. Sorry.

>>1045140
My dad can totally beat up your dad!

>>1045140
Not here to argue schools. I'm here to reinforce the fact that financial engineering is bullshit, and anyone who thinks otherwise, should be Schrödinger's next experiment.

>>1045151
i cant believe you people are this fucking dumb

you really have no idea how things work

>>1045158
We know how things work, and we know financial engineering is a load of horseshit. That's the only thing I'm arguing. You're an economist, not an engineer in any way.

>>1045160
you're a fucking idiot really

im a mathematician arguing its merits
clearly you have no experience whatsoever with the field so you'd be better off keeping quiet

>>1045158
Also, I think you'll be more at home on this board.

>>>/new/

This board is based on real science (not guesses).

>>1045176
real science
implying the empirical observations that guide physics and chem are different from the empirical observations of financial markes from which axioms are produced and mathematical frameworks constructed

troll harder kid

>>1045169
I haven't seen a single merit other than 'applied mathematics.' If that allowed it to be a high-class science, then teaching should be up there, too. Because you know, teachers TEACH math. And they're using it... and know it really well... THAT MEANS IT'S GOD-TIER, RIGHT?!

>>1045182
If I'm trolling, then it's working pretty well, yeah?

>>1045186
high class teaching is up there dumbass

Karatzas, Shreve, Merton, Cvitanic, Duffie, etc they teach and use the shit everyday

>>1045190
not really

you're arguments are akin to those every other dumbass

hurr durr hard science is so pure
hurr durr studying physical interactions is different from studying financial markets
hurr durr purity

ITT: Financial "Engineers" get butthurt, and learn they aren't actually engineers.

/thread

>>1045226
cool story bro
more like

itt faggots butthurt because they learn financial engineering is actually on a higher tier than their shit field

>>1043683

>>1045298
i lold but that's unrealistic

put a panel on the left of the guy making millions and getting his dick sucked and generally enjoying life

put one on the right of the guy doing bitchwork in the lab for his whole life, never really contributing anything worthwhile to the field and dying in obscurity

>>1045318
>Finance
>Making millions
Who's the one being unrealistic again?

>>1045328
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/12/12/good_deal_average_goldman_sachs_employee_makes_62
2000/

not that unrealistic bro
if you're decent you hit 7 figures within 10 years

>>1045298
FUCKING YES

>>1045335
>Implying those figures are not the exception
You will most likely be a wage slave like the rest of us

Who's gunna help OP when he deletes recycle bin?

>>1045355
hardly

but that's not the point im even making with this thred

economics is shit tier....take some maths.

>>1045365
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Finance_Major/Salary/by_Job
derp

>>1045358
someone with a windows CD (or whichever one corresponding to OP's OS)

>>1045377
look buddy
I go to a good school
we feed into goldman, bridgewater, de shaw, etc

if I opted to do finance instead of grad school I wouldn't be going to some shit tier trading place

but like I said
thats besides the point

>>1045390
The point is that finance people don't do anything relevant

>>1045404
and a scientist does how?

>>1045414
you did not just ask that

>>1045423
a wealthy man does good with his wealth than a typical scientist does with his brain over the course of a lifetime

>>1043702
Except that none of those give results that are in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER correct...

all those analysis things have one thing in common: none of them makes any kind of reliable prediction of anything.

economics = fancy maths driven fraud system

>>1045437
you clearly have no idea how those mathematical tools are implemented in the financial realm

>>1043825
yeah this explains why pretty much 50% of all experts make a loss on the long term... because it's completely un predictable


protip: companys that make FUCKLOADS of money on the stock market, deal with inside information, and with hughe amounts of money to effect the market in their favour. Many of them get caught, but they just start up another firm and repeat. Shit happens ALL THE TIME, every year. The system is fucking flawed.

People who are actually successful in finance dont waste their time criticizing the sciences and people who are successful in the sciences dont waste their time criticizing business/finance/economics.

ITT: wannabes

>>1045448
derp
I get my opinion of the market from foxnews and cnn
im an expert on how financial institutions are run
listen to me
derp

>>1045442
Actually I know how all of them work, including neural networks applied on the same stuff, which is leaps and bounds better, but still completely unreliable and worthless. Sorry bro.

>>1045454
Prove me wrong. I can give so many examples it's not even funny.

>>1045442
Maybe I should use mathematical tools to predict the lottery then

>>1045456
knowing how they are implemented for neural networks and knowing how they are used in the financial realm are two different things

unless you want to provide a brief primer on how each is used in finance I suggest you keep quiet kid

>>1045463
that'd be like proving to a devout christian that God isn't real
>>1045466
completely different things bro

>>1045454
Yeah... no, I don't live in the usa.

But there's an upside to this. If you manage to detect which company that is cheating at the time, on some markets you get info about who is buying and selling. You can make bigtime cash off of it. Sad story is they made transactions anonymous on most scandinavian markets recently... probably because they are controlling the entire market to the extent they could push the anonymization through... it really is a fucked up system. Which has been proven by a couple of individuals recently. Which got jailed and busted so hard it's not even comprehensible.

tl:dr money controls the industrialized world to an extent that's not sound.

>>1045473
Dude... what?

I'm talking about neural networks applied to the financial realm. More specifically to the stock market. If you don't know what that is or how it works maybe YOU should provide those explanations... Do you really study economics? I don't but there's no need. All maths you work with is really basic to a scientist.

>>1045510
what math does a scientist work with that a financial engineer doesnt

>>1045516
Math that improves the sum of human knowledge

>>1045510
and nice way to sidestep the question

knowing how to use those in neural networks applied the stock market and more genearlly for financial derivatives unrelated to stocks are entirely different beasts

get out kid

>>1045454
Two things: Goldman Sachs and high-frequency trading.
What now?

>>1045516
Pretty much ALL OF IT. Except a TINY area in statistics which you utilise. Rofl

>>1045531
again another sidestep

analysis
number theory
stochastic calculus
PDE's
numerical methods
markov chains
etc
hell even topology

it's all used in mathematical finance

>>1045534
Yeah I'm sure your fancy mathematical models could of predicted the house market crash

>>1045534
Nice try. 2/10.

because it is all made up nonsense that exists primarily as a social barrier to keep lower classes down.

>>1045546
None of those things reach past the maths invented in the 19th century.

>>1045546
What the hell do any of those things have to do with finance?
Topology?
Are you kidding me?

>>1045558
stochastic calculus was invented in the 20th century

try harder fag

you can't provide a single area of math that isn't used in finance

you'd have delve into completely esoteric garbage like

orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle
Kummer theory
Tate structures

gtfo

>>1045561
Riddle me this mathfags
If you're all so great at investing why do you work for other people?

>>1045561
oh noes 20th century... haha big diff... dude

>>1045570
100 years is a long time

ito didn't develop his flavors till the mid 50's

convex analysis can really only be traced back to maybe the 1970's

gtfo please

>>1045568
you need capital to implement things

you might be familiar with the law of large numbers

>>1045579
Still
under your assumption math professors should have no problem getting rich

lets see,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management
>Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton, who shared the 1997 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

>lost $4.6 billion in less than four months

/thread

>>1045586
I'm talking millions upon millions

not all math professors are equal
those at top schools could quite easily transition to wall street and make lots of money
such a life is hectic and stressful with long hours
they are content to make 300K working for a university with a relatively laid back life on tenure

>>1045568
Mathfags fail harder at applying math to economics than the opposite sex

>>1045594
everyone knows this story

shit happens

I could explain to you the mistakes they made with regard to hedging but there's no point

there are winners and losers

>>1045595
Yes but the point I'm trying to make is that he wouldn't even have to work at wallstreet
He could grab part of those 300k invest it over time and make millions based on his supposedly "perfect" mathematical models

>>1045586
Math professors are still limited by the one flaw in their logic:
They keep following the law.
That's why they'll never succeed at stock management.

>deconstruct oligopolies
>win Nobel Prize 2011

>>1045603
>shit happens
when something goes wrong
>omg they are genius
when something goes not wrong

shit tier people are shit tier, fuck all those middlebrows

>>1045616
that's the way the world works
look at how people dickride Nassim Taleb

which one of the nobel prize winning faggots busted his fund a couple years ago?
nobel prize=joke

In science you need to understand the world.
In business you need others to misunderstand it.

>>1045864
In science you need to understand the world.
In financial engineering you need to understand the makert

I see no difference