[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 107 KB, 583x662, whoops.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9478340 No.9478340 [Reply] [Original]

>he isn't using quantum physics to become a billionaire
Seriously?
Isn't sci supposed to be smart?

>> No.9479008

kek

>> No.9479024

>>9478340
I have thought that QM could be applied to social science before. Think about it, the behavior of the group is highly predictable yet the behaviour of the individual is quite unpredictable.

>> No.9479242

>>9478340
As a layman what does that mean

>> No.9479521

>>9478340
Because I'm smart enough to know that you can just call it a stochastic PDE instead of trying to sound smarter with meme names.

>> No.9479534
File: 733 KB, 779x3200, students.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9479534

.

>> No.9479584
File: 44 KB, 680x765, 1396938837108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9479584

Most intelligent people really do not care about money, this is proven time and time and time again but is generally heavily ignored, Grigori Perelman is the obvious example.

It is however quite stupid to not care about money but publish your research to help idiots make money.

>> No.9479593

>>9479584
>Most intelligent people
Define this
Because maybe not geniuses but certainly those of above average intelligence

>> No.9479666

>>9479584
>Most intelligent people really do not care about money, this is proven time and time and time again but is generally heavily ignored, Grigori Perelman is the obvious example
Bullshit. Caring or not about money is a matter of personality, not temperament. You might not think that guys like Elon Musk, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin aren't highly intelligent because they didn't publish anything, but their feats prove their smarts.
However, there are many smart people that do not pursue money, and that's because:
1. They are legitimately interested purely in their subject of study, not the outcome of it. Perelman is a good example of that.
or
2. They are bitter faggots that do a bunch of rationalizations to think they are like 1, but in reality they do care about money (even if just a little bit) and have given up on making it because they are too lazy to get to work on something they are not familiar with.

>> No.9479671

>>9479666
Caring or not about money is a matter of personality, not intellect*

>> No.9479848

>>9478340
Its not gonna work

>> No.9479854

>>9479666
>They are bitter faggots
Why the homophobia?

>> No.9479858

Well I've always thought if I come up with some cool shit it will be both lucrative and contributive. Not sure how exactly I could leverage something in physics or math without applying it. Patenting some sweet molecule would probably be tits

>> No.9479865

>>9479854
It’s instinctive

>> No.9479913

>>9478340
>the Schrödinger equation for the stock price
L0Lno fgt pls

>> No.9479978

>>9478340
This sounds retarded. Do you have a link OP?

>> No.9480197

>>9478340
Read the paper, its shit. but kind of interesting. They create a equation describing how the probability density of the rate of return for a stock evolves over time in an 'external field' that contains all external information that can influence the stock price.

I found some other quantum stock models as well, going to read them too. I love this sort of thing, although most of the time its useless.

>> No.9480224

>>9479978
Just some post on biz a couple days back
Wanted like a shit ton of ETH for the "strategy" obv scam
He also posted this
>>9479534

>> No.9480831

>>9479024
Nice idea, only 75 years too late to be original
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)

>> No.9480834

>>9479666
>Elon Musk, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin aren't highly intelligent because they didn't publish anything, but their feats prove their smarts.
scientism brainlet detected
also nice trips

>> No.9480841

>>9478340
This is so stupid I cant even

>> No.9481109

>>9480834
What the fuck do you mean? How was that scientism?

>> No.9481703

Heres a better paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4614.pdf
>We could never take into account all economic and non-economic conditions that have influences to the market. Therefore, we usually consider some very simplified and idealized models
>the impossibility of observing the rate of return and its instantaneous forward time derivative.
>The trade of a stock can be regarded as the basic process that measures its momentary price.
>The stock price can only be determined at the time of sale when it is between traders.
>We can never simultaneously know both the ownership of a stock and its price
Needs some more work but I dont see why this should be dismissed out of hand. I doubt a Schrodinger type equation is the best to use, but another type of equation sharing some properties with QM may work.

>> No.9481709

Get your DAILY 7 count Softgels or FAST 7 count sublingual tablets delivered to your door.

While supplies last.

Follow link below.

Colorado grown, Organically farmed, Lab tested.

https://panacealifelabs.com/shop?a_aid=TLopez

>> No.9481717

>listening to a bunch of communists about the stock market
yeah okay. economics is pseudoscience to begin with.

>> No.9483072

>he hasn't already use quantum mechanics to take control of reality and ascend beyond material goods while keeping string theory down to ensure permanent domination