<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_09_2024229</id>
	<title>What Computer Science Can Teach Economics</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257761520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:my/.username@@@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">eldavojohn</a> writes <i>"A new award-winning thesis from <a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/game-theory.html">an MIT computer science assistant professor</a> showed that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash\_equilibrium">Nash equilibrium</a> of complex games (like the economy or poker) belong to problems with non-deterministic polynomial (NP) complexity (more specifically <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPAD\_(complexity)">PPAD complexity</a>, a subset of TFNP problems which is a subset of FNP problems which is a subset of NP problems).  More importantly there should be a single solution for one problem that can be adapted to fit all the other problems.  Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker, you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy.  Some computer scientists are calling this the biggest development in game theory in a decade."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " A new award-winning thesis from an MIT computer science assistant professor showed that the Nash equilibrium of complex games ( like the economy or poker ) belong to problems with non-deterministic polynomial ( NP ) complexity ( more specifically PPAD complexity , a subset of TFNP problems which is a subset of FNP problems which is a subset of NP problems ) .
More importantly there should be a single solution for one problem that can be adapted to fit all the other problems .
Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker , you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy .
Some computer scientists are calling this the biggest development in game theory in a decade .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "A new award-winning thesis from an MIT computer science assistant professor showed that the Nash equilibrium of complex games (like the economy or poker) belong to problems with non-deterministic polynomial (NP) complexity (more specifically PPAD complexity, a subset of TFNP problems which is a subset of FNP problems which is a subset of NP problems).
More importantly there should be a single solution for one problem that can be adapted to fit all the other problems.
Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker, you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy.
Some computer scientists are calling this the biggest development in game theory in a decade.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040772</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257773820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.</p></div></blockquote><p>I propose that we fix this incredible oversight by introducing the concept of "scarcity" to those silly economists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account , but at least they should get the boundary conditions right , and one of those is that our resources are limited.I propose that we fix this incredible oversight by introducing the concept of " scarcity " to those silly economists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.I propose that we fix this incredible oversight by introducing the concept of "scarcity" to those silly economists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044110</id>
	<title>Re:ummm</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257857460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theoretical computer scientists are mathematicians who worked out a better strategy for getting grant money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theoretical computer scientists are mathematicians who worked out a better strategy for getting grant money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theoretical computer scientists are mathematicians who worked out a better strategy for getting grant money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30049184</id>
	<title>Re:Misses the post-scarcity point; digital abundan</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1257881700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was with you till you started to ramble about the "death of conservative economics".  What you fail to realize is that we don't live in a post-scarcity world.  We live in a dual economy.  We have parts of the economy that are post-scarcity and parts that are very scarce.   Energy, technology, bits, are all post-scarcity.  Water, food, land, Megan Fox are all scarce resources.  The problem is that people are so used to the scarce economy that they don't know how to deal with the new post-scarce resources.  They treat the post-scarce resources just like the scarce one and try to limit the distribution of those resources.  To say that conservative economics is dead is a gross overstatement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was with you till you started to ramble about the " death of conservative economics " .
What you fail to realize is that we do n't live in a post-scarcity world .
We live in a dual economy .
We have parts of the economy that are post-scarcity and parts that are very scarce .
Energy , technology , bits , are all post-scarcity .
Water , food , land , Megan Fox are all scarce resources .
The problem is that people are so used to the scarce economy that they do n't know how to deal with the new post-scarce resources .
They treat the post-scarce resources just like the scarce one and try to limit the distribution of those resources .
To say that conservative economics is dead is a gross overstatement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was with you till you started to ramble about the "death of conservative economics".
What you fail to realize is that we don't live in a post-scarcity world.
We live in a dual economy.
We have parts of the economy that are post-scarcity and parts that are very scarce.
Energy, technology, bits, are all post-scarcity.
Water, food, land, Megan Fox are all scarce resources.
The problem is that people are so used to the scarce economy that they don't know how to deal with the new post-scarce resources.
They treat the post-scarce resources just like the scarce one and try to limit the distribution of those resources.
To say that conservative economics is dead is a gross overstatement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039820</id>
	<title>Re:Reads like string theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257768840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poker? I haven't even kissed 'er!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poker ?
I have n't even kissed 'er !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poker?
I haven't even kissed 'er!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043860</id>
	<title>Re:No shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257854040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, in reality there are an infinite number of strategies based on where to stand, how to move, where to look, where to jump or kick using which technique... Modelling the situation with three alternatives is not significantly more realistic than two alternatives, and what they are really going for is the simplest possible example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , in reality there are an infinite number of strategies based on where to stand , how to move , where to look , where to jump or kick using which technique... Modelling the situation with three alternatives is not significantly more realistic than two alternatives , and what they are really going for is the simplest possible example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, in reality there are an infinite number of strategies based on where to stand, how to move, where to look, where to jump or kick using which technique... Modelling the situation with three alternatives is not significantly more realistic than two alternatives, and what they are really going for is the simplest possible example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30048602</id>
	<title>Uh, you're looking at this the wrong way...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, "solve poker --&gt; solve the economy" also implies "solve the economy --&gt; solve poker".<br>Every time this sort of thing pops up in mathematics, computer science, or economics, people look at it exactly the wrong way.<br>The situation reminds me of AI and all that work done on chess -- in the end, chess turns out to be much harder than anyone previously thought.<br>This news isn't telling us that the analyzing the economy is any easier. It is telling us that poker is a heck of a lot tougher to analyze than anyone thought.  Well, that is anyone who hasn't had the joy of losing 5 grand in 3 hours to a bunch of cigar smoking, misogynistic neo-neanderthals all because he thought he had an unbeatable system...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , " solve poker -- &gt; solve the economy " also implies " solve the economy -- &gt; solve poker " .Every time this sort of thing pops up in mathematics , computer science , or economics , people look at it exactly the wrong way.The situation reminds me of AI and all that work done on chess -- in the end , chess turns out to be much harder than anyone previously thought.This news is n't telling us that the analyzing the economy is any easier .
It is telling us that poker is a heck of a lot tougher to analyze than anyone thought .
Well , that is anyone who has n't had the joy of losing 5 grand in 3 hours to a bunch of cigar smoking , misogynistic neo-neanderthals all because he thought he had an unbeatable system.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, "solve poker --&gt; solve the economy" also implies "solve the economy --&gt; solve poker".Every time this sort of thing pops up in mathematics, computer science, or economics, people look at it exactly the wrong way.The situation reminds me of AI and all that work done on chess -- in the end, chess turns out to be much harder than anyone previously thought.This news isn't telling us that the analyzing the economy is any easier.
It is telling us that poker is a heck of a lot tougher to analyze than anyone thought.
Well, that is anyone who hasn't had the joy of losing 5 grand in 3 hours to a bunch of cigar smoking, misogynistic neo-neanderthals all because he thought he had an unbeatable system...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039532</id>
	<title>Bloatware</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1257766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bloatware = Current Government</p><p>Time to re-install windows on a freshly formatted hard drive, ala. Revolution.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bloatware = Current GovernmentTime to re-install windows on a freshly formatted hard drive , ala. Revolution.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bloatware = Current GovernmentTime to re-install windows on a freshly formatted hard drive, ala. Revolution.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043686</id>
	<title>Re:Nice setup</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1257851280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Economy not responding? Try turning your stimulus off and on again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Economy not responding ?
Try turning your stimulus off and on again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economy not responding?
Try turning your stimulus off and on again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044960</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>bigpat</author>
	<datestamp>1257865500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your impression is wrong. Every economist knows about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Robert\_Malthus" title="wikipedia.org">Thomas Robert Malthus</a> [wikipedia.org] and Malthusian economics -- for the pre-industrial era his model best explains demographics and the limits of growth. It only so happened that just after he published his thoughts, the industrial revolution happened and technological progress pushed the boundaries of growth further and further - in an exponential manner.</p><p>Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie? Limited by fossil fuels? Or a single planet's worth of solar energy? Maybe a Dyson sphere's worth of solar energy? Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years.</p></div><p>Problem is that economists have built "innovation" into their forecast models as if it is a resource unto itself.  We shouldn't assume the availability of technology before it is invented.  Each major technological advance in food production, health care, communication, construction and transportation has moved the limits of population growth higher and higher, but to assume that this will continue is to court disaster.  Innovation should be incorporated into economic models after it happens and not before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your impression is wrong .
Every economist knows about Thomas Robert Malthus [ wikipedia.org ] and Malthusian economics -- for the pre-industrial era his model best explains demographics and the limits of growth .
It only so happened that just after he published his thoughts , the industrial revolution happened and technological progress pushed the boundaries of growth further and further - in an exponential manner.Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie ?
Limited by fossil fuels ?
Or a single planet 's worth of solar energy ?
Maybe a Dyson sphere 's worth of solar energy ?
Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years.Problem is that economists have built " innovation " into their forecast models as if it is a resource unto itself .
We should n't assume the availability of technology before it is invented .
Each major technological advance in food production , health care , communication , construction and transportation has moved the limits of population growth higher and higher , but to assume that this will continue is to court disaster .
Innovation should be incorporated into economic models after it happens and not before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your impression is wrong.
Every economist knows about Thomas Robert Malthus [wikipedia.org] and Malthusian economics -- for the pre-industrial era his model best explains demographics and the limits of growth.
It only so happened that just after he published his thoughts, the industrial revolution happened and technological progress pushed the boundaries of growth further and further - in an exponential manner.Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie?
Limited by fossil fuels?
Or a single planet's worth of solar energy?
Maybe a Dyson sphere's worth of solar energy?
Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years.Problem is that economists have built "innovation" into their forecast models as if it is a resource unto itself.
We shouldn't assume the availability of technology before it is invented.
Each major technological advance in food production, health care, communication, construction and transportation has moved the limits of population growth higher and higher, but to assume that this will continue is to court disaster.
Innovation should be incorporated into economic models after it happens and not before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30051190</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>FrankDerKte</author>
	<datestamp>1257846720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure 2^128, we're out of adresses by then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure 2 ^ 128 , we 're out of adresses by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure 2^128, we're out of adresses by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039716</id>
	<title>Re:Reads like string theory</title>
	<author>Mr2cents</author>
	<datestamp>1257768180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all else fails, at least we can still exchange a few funny stories about crashes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all else fails , at least we can still exchange a few funny stories about crashes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all else fails, at least we can still exchange a few funny stories about crashes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039684</id>
	<title>Re:"Non-Deterministic"</title>
	<author>scheme</author>
	<datestamp>1257767940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not so. There is a reason this class of problems is called "non-deterministic". That is because there is no way to determine, ahead of time, whether a finite solution for this problem exists!</p></div><p>No, that's just wrong. The problems are called non-deterministic polynomial (NP) because they can be solved  in polynomial time by a non-deterministic turing machine.  A non-deterministic turing machine is a turing machine that can take go into multiple states and accepts an input if any of it's states end up leading to an accept state. Think superposition of states with a wave collapse if you're a physicist. </p><p>All of these problems have finite solutions and in fact one of the requirements is that a NP problem has a solution that can be checked in polynomial time by a deterministic turing machine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so .
There is a reason this class of problems is called " non-deterministic " .
That is because there is no way to determine , ahead of time , whether a finite solution for this problem exists ! No , that 's just wrong .
The problems are called non-deterministic polynomial ( NP ) because they can be solved in polynomial time by a non-deterministic turing machine .
A non-deterministic turing machine is a turing machine that can take go into multiple states and accepts an input if any of it 's states end up leading to an accept state .
Think superposition of states with a wave collapse if you 're a physicist .
All of these problems have finite solutions and in fact one of the requirements is that a NP problem has a solution that can be checked in polynomial time by a deterministic turing machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so.
There is a reason this class of problems is called "non-deterministic".
That is because there is no way to determine, ahead of time, whether a finite solution for this problem exists!No, that's just wrong.
The problems are called non-deterministic polynomial (NP) because they can be solved  in polynomial time by a non-deterministic turing machine.
A non-deterministic turing machine is a turing machine that can take go into multiple states and accepts an input if any of it's states end up leading to an accept state.
Think superposition of states with a wave collapse if you're a physicist.
All of these problems have finite solutions and in fact one of the requirements is that a NP problem has a solution that can be checked in polynomial time by a deterministic turing machine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040258</id>
	<title>Mind Surfer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't remember the name of the author, but inside it's deranged drug-trip of a storyline the author hypothesized basically this exact type of formula, eventually resulting in one of the characters almost getting killed after making a killing on dealer-slanted cardgames based on results of the formula, mentally calculated I believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't remember the name of the author , but inside it 's deranged drug-trip of a storyline the author hypothesized basically this exact type of formula , eventually resulting in one of the characters almost getting killed after making a killing on dealer-slanted cardgames based on results of the formula , mentally calculated I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't remember the name of the author, but inside it's deranged drug-trip of a storyline the author hypothesized basically this exact type of formula, eventually resulting in one of the characters almost getting killed after making a killing on dealer-slanted cardgames based on results of the formula, mentally calculated I believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30056590</id>
	<title>Re:Reads like string theory</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1257878220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Biggest development in a decade! We haven't figured out how yet though!</p></div> </blockquote><p>Coming up with <em>any</em> definitive answers would be the  biggest development of the whole human history. Simply asserting that they exist is easily the development of the century. This is economics, after all, rather than astrology or psychics or similar respectful scientifically studied fields.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggest development in a decade !
We have n't figured out how yet though !
Coming up with any definitive answers would be the biggest development of the whole human history .
Simply asserting that they exist is easily the development of the century .
This is economics , after all , rather than astrology or psychics or similar respectful scientifically studied fields .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggest development in a decade!
We haven't figured out how yet though!
Coming up with any definitive answers would be the  biggest development of the whole human history.
Simply asserting that they exist is easily the development of the century.
This is economics, after all, rather than astrology or psychics or similar respectful scientifically studied fields.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043994</id>
	<title>Re:Article misrepresents complexity theory</title>
	<author>UnixUnix</author>
	<datestamp>1257855900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
     To be precise, Nash equilibrium (for 3-person games) was shown to be  PPAD-complete  (rather than NP-complete).   You are right, though, it is not known that PPAD (or, for that matter, NP) requires more than polynomial time -- but it is very widely believed by very knowledgeable people with very good reason that it does!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be precise , Nash equilibrium ( for 3-person games ) was shown to be PPAD-complete ( rather than NP-complete ) .
You are right , though , it is not known that PPAD ( or , for that matter , NP ) requires more than polynomial time -- but it is very widely believed by very knowledgeable people with very good reason that it does !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
     To be precise, Nash equilibrium (for 3-person games) was shown to be  PPAD-complete  (rather than NP-complete).
You are right, though, it is not known that PPAD (or, for that matter, NP) requires more than polynomial time -- but it is very widely believed by very knowledgeable people with very good reason that it does!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041058</id>
	<title>Re:No shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257775680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those relatively simple equations are quite accurate.  The problem is finding solutions to those equations, typically in terms of differential equations of one kind or another.  That is a hard mathematical problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those relatively simple equations are quite accurate .
The problem is finding solutions to those equations , typically in terms of differential equations of one kind or another .
That is a hard mathematical problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those relatively simple equations are quite accurate.
The problem is finding solutions to those equations, typically in terms of differential equations of one kind or another.
That is a hard mathematical problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039818</id>
	<title>Re:"Non-Deterministic"</title>
	<author>offrdbandit</author>
	<datestamp>1257768840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are mistaken. By "single solution" they are not referring to a "solution" to the problem, but a "solution" to the problem of calculating the solution.

That is, the class of problems are related in such a way that an efficient algorithm for one is an efficient algorithm for all (because each problem can be decomposed in polynomial time time into "sister" problems of the same class).</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are mistaken .
By " single solution " they are not referring to a " solution " to the problem , but a " solution " to the problem of calculating the solution .
That is , the class of problems are related in such a way that an efficient algorithm for one is an efficient algorithm for all ( because each problem can be decomposed in polynomial time time into " sister " problems of the same class ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are mistaken.
By "single solution" they are not referring to a "solution" to the problem, but a "solution" to the problem of calculating the solution.
That is, the class of problems are related in such a way that an efficient algorithm for one is an efficient algorithm for all (because each problem can be decomposed in polynomial time time into "sister" problems of the same class).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039380</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1257766200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Daskalakis</b>, working with <b>Christos Papadimitriou</b> of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Liverpool&rsquo;s Paul Goldberg, has shown that for some games, the Nash equilibrium is so hard to calculate that all the computers in the world couldn&rsquo;t find it in the lifetime of the universe.</p></div><p>It sounds all Greek to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Daskalakis , working with Christos Papadimitriou of the University of California , Berkeley , and the University of Liverpool    s Paul Goldberg , has shown that for some games , the Nash equilibrium is so hard to calculate that all the computers in the world couldn    t find it in the lifetime of the universe.It sounds all Greek to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Daskalakis, working with Christos Papadimitriou of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Liverpool’s Paul Goldberg, has shown that for some games, the Nash equilibrium is so hard to calculate that all the computers in the world couldn’t find it in the lifetime of the universe.It sounds all Greek to me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043626</id>
	<title>Chaotic Dynamics in Game Theory</title>
	<author>herwin</author>
	<datestamp>1257850380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to solve this problem using approximation techniques and found it failed to converge and instead showed chaotic dynamics. Genetic algorithm techniques did converge, but not to a global solution. The paper was published about 15 years ago in a collection of social systems modelling studies.</p><p>Nasty problem...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to solve this problem using approximation techniques and found it failed to converge and instead showed chaotic dynamics .
Genetic algorithm techniques did converge , but not to a global solution .
The paper was published about 15 years ago in a collection of social systems modelling studies.Nasty problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to solve this problem using approximation techniques and found it failed to converge and instead showed chaotic dynamics.
Genetic algorithm techniques did converge, but not to a global solution.
The paper was published about 15 years ago in a collection of social systems modelling studies.Nasty problem...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040396</id>
	<title>Re:Nice setup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257771600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It IS normal. Growth is not possible for any long length of time. You can pull the growth forward through the use of debt, but that eventually comes back to bite you and you get a crash. If no one messes with the system to the extremes that they have in recent decades and the crooks are removed, the "booms" and "busts" don't occur in any significant order of magnitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It IS normal .
Growth is not possible for any long length of time .
You can pull the growth forward through the use of debt , but that eventually comes back to bite you and you get a crash .
If no one messes with the system to the extremes that they have in recent decades and the crooks are removed , the " booms " and " busts " do n't occur in any significant order of magnitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It IS normal.
Growth is not possible for any long length of time.
You can pull the growth forward through the use of debt, but that eventually comes back to bite you and you get a crash.
If no one messes with the system to the extremes that they have in recent decades and the crooks are removed, the "booms" and "busts" don't occur in any significant order of magnitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047068</id>
	<title>Re:So, this economist and...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257874680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first orders a pint, and the second says, I'll have half of what he's having. The third says he'll have half of what the second's having. The fourth says...</p><p>The bartender says "you guys are idiots" and pours two pints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar .
The first orders a pint , and the second says , I 'll have half of what he 's having .
The third says he 'll have half of what the second 's having .
The fourth says...The bartender says " you guys are idiots " and pours two pints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar.
The first orders a pint, and the second says, I'll have half of what he's having.
The third says he'll have half of what the second's having.
The fourth says...The bartender says "you guys are idiots" and pours two pints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160</id>
	<title>Reads like string theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257765240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Biggest development in a decade! We haven't figured out how yet though!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggest development in a decade !
We have n't figured out how yet though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggest development in a decade!
We haven't figured out how yet though!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047868</id>
	<title>Re:Nice setup</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257877260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Growth is not possible for any long length of time.</p></div><p>How long is "long"? Five years? Ten years? A century? 650 years? That last length of time is how long the European economies have been growing. Sure there have been occasional interruptions, like the First and Second World Wars, but the economies of these countries have always rebounded.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Growth is not possible for any long length of time.How long is " long " ?
Five years ?
Ten years ?
A century ?
650 years ?
That last length of time is how long the European economies have been growing .
Sure there have been occasional interruptions , like the First and Second World Wars , but the economies of these countries have always rebounded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Growth is not possible for any long length of time.How long is "long"?
Five years?
Ten years?
A century?
650 years?
That last length of time is how long the European economies have been growing.
Sure there have been occasional interruptions, like the First and Second World Wars, but the economies of these countries have always rebounded.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043092</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257885360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>specifically, they don't seem to understand the exponential function, otherwise they would not speak of "growth" all the time.</p></div><p>Rest assured that it's just your impression and understanding of economics that is wrong. Resources aren't a rigid limit on an economy. There are a number of goods and services that have low resource requirements (knowledge and other information, reputation, stability, etc). For example, how many resources does Moore's Law consume? It's just an observation someone relatively famous made in 1965. It consumes not even a gram of silicon yet it has been the driving force behind the miniaturization of electronic components for at least the past 60 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>specifically , they do n't seem to understand the exponential function , otherwise they would not speak of " growth " all the time.Rest assured that it 's just your impression and understanding of economics that is wrong .
Resources are n't a rigid limit on an economy .
There are a number of goods and services that have low resource requirements ( knowledge and other information , reputation , stability , etc ) .
For example , how many resources does Moore 's Law consume ?
It 's just an observation someone relatively famous made in 1965 .
It consumes not even a gram of silicon yet it has been the driving force behind the miniaturization of electronic components for at least the past 60 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>specifically, they don't seem to understand the exponential function, otherwise they would not speak of "growth" all the time.Rest assured that it's just your impression and understanding of economics that is wrong.
Resources aren't a rigid limit on an economy.
There are a number of goods and services that have low resource requirements (knowledge and other information, reputation, stability, etc).
For example, how many resources does Moore's Law consume?
It's just an observation someone relatively famous made in 1965.
It consumes not even a gram of silicon yet it has been the driving force behind the miniaturization of electronic components for at least the past 60 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039552</id>
	<title>Wikipedia's Altered Theory of Computation</title>
	<author>Halotron1</author>
	<datestamp>1257767100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now would be a GREAT time to go alter the wikipedia articles on NP completeness and such, then watch the aftermath on slashdot as the n00bs go do their research and learn what it is for the first time!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now would be a GREAT time to go alter the wikipedia articles on NP completeness and such , then watch the aftermath on slashdot as the n00bs go do their research and learn what it is for the first time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now would be a GREAT time to go alter the wikipedia articles on NP completeness and such, then watch the aftermath on slashdot as the n00bs go do their research and learn what it is for the first time!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044814</id>
	<title>Re:Misses the post-scarcity point; digital abundan</title>
	<author>Krannert IT</author>
	<datestamp>1257864480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I think your post was quite interesting (great references, they were interesting to read), I think you are missing a key concept of economics... All resources are scarce, therefore there is no such thing as "post scarcity." I also think you have missed the point that economics is not as much about predicting a market as it is about predicting human behavior in a market. While people are very unpredicible, often making poor decisions, most economists would blame this on an imbalance of information in the system. I had a very hard time understing how economists believe that people make rational decisions when there is so much evidence to the contrary, but in general they do make the best decisions they can with the information at hand, their individual level of understanding, and their own self interests at heart.

Yes, many resources have become cheap and abundant but even the air we rely on to sustain us is scarce. The EPA was formed in part to help protect our air and water resources by adding regulations and creating penalties for non-compliance thus adding a "cost" to the air we breathe. In the digital age we tend to forget that we must give up something in order to take advantage of something else, we must pay to have Internet access (instead of buying a few extra six-packs of beer), we must take our limited time in order to surf the Internet and post on Slashdot. Name a resource and I can demonstrate its scarcity.

There will never be such a thing as a "post scarcity" world, even hydrogen is scarce as there is only so much of it in the universe. I would go as far as to believe that as time goes on resources will become even more scarce (in general). Technology allows us to make some resources obsolete but generally puts an emphasis on new resources. I think humans will forever be chasing the ball of unlimited resources. The theory that fusion has the potential to provide free unlimited power is faulty, containing such a powerful source of energy will definately cost more than just the "free" energy of the system, someone will have to monitor the system to ensure it is safe, if that entity monitoring the system is a robot, it will have taken up other resources which could have been used elsewhere. There will be a cost, albeit lower than current costs.

I think we would both agree that traditional economic models do not predict human behavior all that well, but they do have some value when applied in context.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think your post was quite interesting ( great references , they were interesting to read ) , I think you are missing a key concept of economics... All resources are scarce , therefore there is no such thing as " post scarcity .
" I also think you have missed the point that economics is not as much about predicting a market as it is about predicting human behavior in a market .
While people are very unpredicible , often making poor decisions , most economists would blame this on an imbalance of information in the system .
I had a very hard time understing how economists believe that people make rational decisions when there is so much evidence to the contrary , but in general they do make the best decisions they can with the information at hand , their individual level of understanding , and their own self interests at heart .
Yes , many resources have become cheap and abundant but even the air we rely on to sustain us is scarce .
The EPA was formed in part to help protect our air and water resources by adding regulations and creating penalties for non-compliance thus adding a " cost " to the air we breathe .
In the digital age we tend to forget that we must give up something in order to take advantage of something else , we must pay to have Internet access ( instead of buying a few extra six-packs of beer ) , we must take our limited time in order to surf the Internet and post on Slashdot .
Name a resource and I can demonstrate its scarcity .
There will never be such a thing as a " post scarcity " world , even hydrogen is scarce as there is only so much of it in the universe .
I would go as far as to believe that as time goes on resources will become even more scarce ( in general ) .
Technology allows us to make some resources obsolete but generally puts an emphasis on new resources .
I think humans will forever be chasing the ball of unlimited resources .
The theory that fusion has the potential to provide free unlimited power is faulty , containing such a powerful source of energy will definately cost more than just the " free " energy of the system , someone will have to monitor the system to ensure it is safe , if that entity monitoring the system is a robot , it will have taken up other resources which could have been used elsewhere .
There will be a cost , albeit lower than current costs .
I think we would both agree that traditional economic models do not predict human behavior all that well , but they do have some value when applied in context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think your post was quite interesting (great references, they were interesting to read), I think you are missing a key concept of economics... All resources are scarce, therefore there is no such thing as "post scarcity.
" I also think you have missed the point that economics is not as much about predicting a market as it is about predicting human behavior in a market.
While people are very unpredicible, often making poor decisions, most economists would blame this on an imbalance of information in the system.
I had a very hard time understing how economists believe that people make rational decisions when there is so much evidence to the contrary, but in general they do make the best decisions they can with the information at hand, their individual level of understanding, and their own self interests at heart.
Yes, many resources have become cheap and abundant but even the air we rely on to sustain us is scarce.
The EPA was formed in part to help protect our air and water resources by adding regulations and creating penalties for non-compliance thus adding a "cost" to the air we breathe.
In the digital age we tend to forget that we must give up something in order to take advantage of something else, we must pay to have Internet access (instead of buying a few extra six-packs of beer), we must take our limited time in order to surf the Internet and post on Slashdot.
Name a resource and I can demonstrate its scarcity.
There will never be such a thing as a "post scarcity" world, even hydrogen is scarce as there is only so much of it in the universe.
I would go as far as to believe that as time goes on resources will become even more scarce (in general).
Technology allows us to make some resources obsolete but generally puts an emphasis on new resources.
I think humans will forever be chasing the ball of unlimited resources.
The theory that fusion has the potential to provide free unlimited power is faulty, containing such a powerful source of energy will definately cost more than just the "free" energy of the system, someone will have to monitor the system to ensure it is safe, if that entity monitoring the system is a robot, it will have taken up other resources which could have been used elsewhere.
There will be a cost, albeit lower than current costs.
I think we would both agree that traditional economic models do not predict human behavior all that well, but they do have some value when applied in context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30051262</id>
	<title>Re:ummm</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1257847020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computer scientists <em>are</em> mathematicians. Computer science is a branch of mathematics (specifically discrete logic). This is separate from software engineering and programming (which are also independent of each other).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer scientists are mathematicians .
Computer science is a branch of mathematics ( specifically discrete logic ) .
This is separate from software engineering and programming ( which are also independent of each other ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer scientists are mathematicians.
Computer science is a branch of mathematics (specifically discrete logic).
This is separate from software engineering and programming (which are also independent of each other).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039182</id>
	<title>No shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257765360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shocker economics problems are beyond the relatively simple equations that were being used to model entire markets.</p><p> <strong>NO SHIT</strong> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shocker economics problems are beyond the relatively simple equations that were being used to model entire markets .
NO SHIT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shocker economics problems are beyond the relatively simple equations that were being used to model entire markets.
NO SHIT </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042500</id>
	<title>Didn't they already prove...</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1257790500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that game theory doesn't work.<p>I remember a few years back some economists doing a study where they gave one person $10 and they could any amount to another person and if they accepted it they both got to keep the cash.</p><p>I seem to recall all the game theorists being shocked that their predicted ideal result(guy 1 gives $1 to guy 2 who accepts the $1 because $1 is better than nothing) didn't happen.</p><p>People are not rational, at least not for any value of rational that any economist has ever managed to define.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that game theory does n't work.I remember a few years back some economists doing a study where they gave one person $ 10 and they could any amount to another person and if they accepted it they both got to keep the cash.I seem to recall all the game theorists being shocked that their predicted ideal result ( guy 1 gives $ 1 to guy 2 who accepts the $ 1 because $ 1 is better than nothing ) did n't happen.People are not rational , at least not for any value of rational that any economist has ever managed to define .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that game theory doesn't work.I remember a few years back some economists doing a study where they gave one person $10 and they could any amount to another person and if they accepted it they both got to keep the cash.I seem to recall all the game theorists being shocked that their predicted ideal result(guy 1 gives $1 to guy 2 who accepts the $1 because $1 is better than nothing) didn't happen.People are not rational, at least not for any value of rational that any economist has ever managed to define.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257766860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm not surprised there is such school. My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of math, specifically, they don't seem to understand the exponential function, otherwise they would not speak of "growth" all the time.<br>I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm not surprised there is such school .
My impression is , that economists in general do n't have a good grasp of math , specifically , they do n't seem to understand the exponential function , otherwise they would not speak of " growth " all the time.I 'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account , but at least they should get the boundary conditions right , and one of those is that our resources are limited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm not surprised there is such school.
My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of math, specifically, they don't seem to understand the exponential function, otherwise they would not speak of "growth" all the time.I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040050</id>
	<title>Three person games</title>
	<author>samwhite\_y</author>
	<datestamp>1257769920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am pleased to see this result. It agrees with some of my own suspicions. Let me describe a simple three person game (players A, B, and C). Here is the rule for each player when it is their turn.</p><p>A player must take $1.00 away from one opponent and give at least half of it to the other opponent. Whatever is not given to the other opponent can be kept by the acting player.</p><p>Each player in turn gets to choose which player to steal a $1.00 from and how much of it they will keep (they can keep at most half) and how much to give to the other opponent. Assume you do 50 rounds of this game (each player is visited 50 times).</p><p>Here is the problem: construct an optimal strategy for each player.</p><p>What makes this problem so difficult is the issue of collusion. If two players decide to gang up on another player, they can both profit at that other player's expense. But if you assume that none of the players have friendships or other factors that might induce collusion, then the only way to get collusion is to offer "bribes". A bribe can be both an offer to not take away a $1.00 and it can be an offer to give more than the standard half of the $1.00 to the other opponent. An optimal strategy is based on deciding who is likely to be giving you better bribes in the future and how do you induce such behavior with your own bribes.</p><p>Now, here is the part I consider exciting. The claim is that calculating the Nash Equilibrium is hard (in a computer calculating sense) for three person games, this one being an example. The claim is actually stronger than that. Getting even somewhat close to a Nash Equilibrium is hard (if it were not, then you would evolve slowly towards the Nash equilibrium by slowly refining "good" solutions into "better" ones -- that would be most likely doable in polynomial time). In other words, not only is it hard to calculate the perfect strategy, it is hard to even calculate a good one.</p><p>To see why that might be the case, let us assume that the three players have chosen a strategy which causes player A to think "it really does not matter if I choose to steal $1.00 from one opponent or another -- my expected outcome is the same." Then player B could offer just 0.01 more of a bribe to induce player A to favor B over C consistently. In other words, a very small adjustment in strategy by one player can have a huge potential impact on their future expected out come. It is this instability of outcome which is the mark of an NP computational problem. A small wiggle in inputs creates huge "chaotic" changes in outputs.</p><p>Side note: This "large change" in outcome based on small change in input is at the heart of what makes factoring large numbers hard. If you multiply two large numbers together, and change just one digit in one number, it will have a large and somewhat unpredictable (until you actually calculate it -- but then that means you are still having to try out all different products to factor a number) outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pleased to see this result .
It agrees with some of my own suspicions .
Let me describe a simple three person game ( players A , B , and C ) .
Here is the rule for each player when it is their turn.A player must take $ 1.00 away from one opponent and give at least half of it to the other opponent .
Whatever is not given to the other opponent can be kept by the acting player.Each player in turn gets to choose which player to steal a $ 1.00 from and how much of it they will keep ( they can keep at most half ) and how much to give to the other opponent .
Assume you do 50 rounds of this game ( each player is visited 50 times ) .Here is the problem : construct an optimal strategy for each player.What makes this problem so difficult is the issue of collusion .
If two players decide to gang up on another player , they can both profit at that other player 's expense .
But if you assume that none of the players have friendships or other factors that might induce collusion , then the only way to get collusion is to offer " bribes " .
A bribe can be both an offer to not take away a $ 1.00 and it can be an offer to give more than the standard half of the $ 1.00 to the other opponent .
An optimal strategy is based on deciding who is likely to be giving you better bribes in the future and how do you induce such behavior with your own bribes.Now , here is the part I consider exciting .
The claim is that calculating the Nash Equilibrium is hard ( in a computer calculating sense ) for three person games , this one being an example .
The claim is actually stronger than that .
Getting even somewhat close to a Nash Equilibrium is hard ( if it were not , then you would evolve slowly towards the Nash equilibrium by slowly refining " good " solutions into " better " ones -- that would be most likely doable in polynomial time ) .
In other words , not only is it hard to calculate the perfect strategy , it is hard to even calculate a good one.To see why that might be the case , let us assume that the three players have chosen a strategy which causes player A to think " it really does not matter if I choose to steal $ 1.00 from one opponent or another -- my expected outcome is the same .
" Then player B could offer just 0.01 more of a bribe to induce player A to favor B over C consistently .
In other words , a very small adjustment in strategy by one player can have a huge potential impact on their future expected out come .
It is this instability of outcome which is the mark of an NP computational problem .
A small wiggle in inputs creates huge " chaotic " changes in outputs.Side note : This " large change " in outcome based on small change in input is at the heart of what makes factoring large numbers hard .
If you multiply two large numbers together , and change just one digit in one number , it will have a large and somewhat unpredictable ( until you actually calculate it -- but then that means you are still having to try out all different products to factor a number ) outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pleased to see this result.
It agrees with some of my own suspicions.
Let me describe a simple three person game (players A, B, and C).
Here is the rule for each player when it is their turn.A player must take $1.00 away from one opponent and give at least half of it to the other opponent.
Whatever is not given to the other opponent can be kept by the acting player.Each player in turn gets to choose which player to steal a $1.00 from and how much of it they will keep (they can keep at most half) and how much to give to the other opponent.
Assume you do 50 rounds of this game (each player is visited 50 times).Here is the problem: construct an optimal strategy for each player.What makes this problem so difficult is the issue of collusion.
If two players decide to gang up on another player, they can both profit at that other player's expense.
But if you assume that none of the players have friendships or other factors that might induce collusion, then the only way to get collusion is to offer "bribes".
A bribe can be both an offer to not take away a $1.00 and it can be an offer to give more than the standard half of the $1.00 to the other opponent.
An optimal strategy is based on deciding who is likely to be giving you better bribes in the future and how do you induce such behavior with your own bribes.Now, here is the part I consider exciting.
The claim is that calculating the Nash Equilibrium is hard (in a computer calculating sense) for three person games, this one being an example.
The claim is actually stronger than that.
Getting even somewhat close to a Nash Equilibrium is hard (if it were not, then you would evolve slowly towards the Nash equilibrium by slowly refining "good" solutions into "better" ones -- that would be most likely doable in polynomial time).
In other words, not only is it hard to calculate the perfect strategy, it is hard to even calculate a good one.To see why that might be the case, let us assume that the three players have chosen a strategy which causes player A to think "it really does not matter if I choose to steal $1.00 from one opponent or another -- my expected outcome is the same.
" Then player B could offer just 0.01 more of a bribe to induce player A to favor B over C consistently.
In other words, a very small adjustment in strategy by one player can have a huge potential impact on their future expected out come.
It is this instability of outcome which is the mark of an NP computational problem.
A small wiggle in inputs creates huge "chaotic" changes in outputs.Side note: This "large change" in outcome based on small change in input is at the heart of what makes factoring large numbers hard.
If you multiply two large numbers together, and change just one digit in one number, it will have a large and somewhat unpredictable (until you actually calculate it -- but then that means you are still having to try out all different products to factor a number) outcome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041692</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>snadrus</author>
	<datestamp>1257781440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Careful with this, Economics is the study of human distribution of limited resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful with this , Economics is the study of human distribution of limited resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful with this, Economics is the study of human distribution of limited resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042630</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>d'baba</author>
	<datestamp>1257792360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie?</p></div><p>People are dying right now because of political and economic limits. And the sad thing is that it looks like it is the political and not the economic/agricultural problems that are limiting people's access to food.</p><p>
How many people must die so that a fraction of 1\% may live like gods?</p><p>
---
<br>Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe. The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie ? People are dying right now because of political and economic limits .
And the sad thing is that it looks like it is the political and not the economic/agricultural problems that are limiting people 's access to food .
How many people must die so that a fraction of 1 \ % may live like gods ?
--- Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe .
The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie?People are dying right now because of political and economic limits.
And the sad thing is that it looks like it is the political and not the economic/agricultural problems that are limiting people's access to food.
How many people must die so that a fraction of 1\% may live like gods?
---
Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe.
The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039852</id>
	<title>He said it is a dismal science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am with Linus on this one<br>Linus is right<br>The man makes sense<br>He is absolutely correct on this one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am with Linus on this oneLinus is rightThe man makes senseHe is absolutely correct on this one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am with Linus on this oneLinus is rightThe man makes senseHe is absolutely correct on this one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040246</id>
	<title>overstated</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257770820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The implications of such a result are overstated:</p><p>* It's easy to construct markets in which finding the optimal solution is NP-hard, and many real-world problems are already of that form--for example, any economic decision that involves an NP-hard optimization problem.</p><p>* Participants already don't find optimal solutions even given infinite computational resources simply because people lack the necessary information to find optimal solutions to begin with.</p><p>* NP-hardness is nearly useless in characterizing the difficulty of real-world problems anyway. Being NP-hard doesn't mean that problems of interest are necessarily hard.  And many problems in P don't have practical algorithms for large problem instances.</p><p>It's interesting that simple 2 person games can be hard as well, but that doesn't fundamentally change what was already known: markets often don't function optimally because of computational limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The implications of such a result are overstated : * It 's easy to construct markets in which finding the optimal solution is NP-hard , and many real-world problems are already of that form--for example , any economic decision that involves an NP-hard optimization problem .
* Participants already do n't find optimal solutions even given infinite computational resources simply because people lack the necessary information to find optimal solutions to begin with .
* NP-hardness is nearly useless in characterizing the difficulty of real-world problems anyway .
Being NP-hard does n't mean that problems of interest are necessarily hard .
And many problems in P do n't have practical algorithms for large problem instances.It 's interesting that simple 2 person games can be hard as well , but that does n't fundamentally change what was already known : markets often do n't function optimally because of computational limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The implications of such a result are overstated:* It's easy to construct markets in which finding the optimal solution is NP-hard, and many real-world problems are already of that form--for example, any economic decision that involves an NP-hard optimization problem.
* Participants already don't find optimal solutions even given infinite computational resources simply because people lack the necessary information to find optimal solutions to begin with.
* NP-hardness is nearly useless in characterizing the difficulty of real-world problems anyway.
Being NP-hard doesn't mean that problems of interest are necessarily hard.
And many problems in P don't have practical algorithms for large problem instances.It's interesting that simple 2 person games can be hard as well, but that doesn't fundamentally change what was already known: markets often don't function optimally because of computational limitations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30046992</id>
	<title>Is cross-over surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257874380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is cross-over between computer science and anything really surprising. Remember that computer science is math, albeit usually with a heavy bent towards practical application. If you study pure theoretical computer science, you are studying pure theoretical mathematics. Is it surprising when physicists use math in a new way? So, why be surprised if computer science is used in a new way?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is cross-over between computer science and anything really surprising .
Remember that computer science is math , albeit usually with a heavy bent towards practical application .
If you study pure theoretical computer science , you are studying pure theoretical mathematics .
Is it surprising when physicists use math in a new way ?
So , why be surprised if computer science is used in a new way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is cross-over between computer science and anything really surprising.
Remember that computer science is math, albeit usually with a heavy bent towards practical application.
If you study pure theoretical computer science, you are studying pure theoretical mathematics.
Is it surprising when physicists use math in a new way?
So, why be surprised if computer science is used in a new way?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041594</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>ldbapp</author>
	<datestamp>1257780480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course there are resource limits.  "Unlimited growth" is a reasonable thing to talk about *now* because of two facts, below.  So, yes, we're limited in our physical resources, but until we are using them maximally efficiently, there's lots of room for economic growth.  It may be debatable how long we have until we start to hit physical limits, but it is very likely not this year, nor 10 years from now, nor even 30 years from now.  (Look up world population in Wikipedia for projections.)<br> <br>

1. Economic activity is proportional to population size (usually).  So as long as the world's population keeps growing, the economy can keep growing.  (And as an aside, I have always interpreted economists' talk about growth to mean: "keeping up with the population".  Doing so makes all the talk about growth seem more reasonable.)  <br> <br>

2. Economic activity, and hence growth, is not only a measure the use of resources, but a measure of the efficiency with which we use those resources.  We have lots of room for increased efficiency.  One real-world example is the vast underutilization of a vast portion of the world's population.<br> <br>

You can even have economic growth without any increase in physical resource usage.  Here's a toy example. Suppose you lived in a world with zero population growth, and one in which every person renewably grew their own food and renewably built their own shelter, with no other economic activity.  Now imagine this community discovered music (and at the same time money!).  There is lots of room for economic growth as people learn to entertain themselves and others, and as they get better and better at it, and people are willing to pay more to hear the better performers.  Then one of the really good performers realizes that it'd better if he pays some bad performer to take over the job of growing his food and building/maintaining his shelter, and the bad performer realizes she's better at that than making music.  More growth.  So you have lots and lots of room for economic growth even if people are only shuffling around into jobs at which they are getting better in lieu of jobs they're not so good at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course there are resource limits .
" Unlimited growth " is a reasonable thing to talk about * now * because of two facts , below .
So , yes , we 're limited in our physical resources , but until we are using them maximally efficiently , there 's lots of room for economic growth .
It may be debatable how long we have until we start to hit physical limits , but it is very likely not this year , nor 10 years from now , nor even 30 years from now .
( Look up world population in Wikipedia for projections .
) 1 .
Economic activity is proportional to population size ( usually ) .
So as long as the world 's population keeps growing , the economy can keep growing .
( And as an aside , I have always interpreted economists ' talk about growth to mean : " keeping up with the population " .
Doing so makes all the talk about growth seem more reasonable .
) 2 .
Economic activity , and hence growth , is not only a measure the use of resources , but a measure of the efficiency with which we use those resources .
We have lots of room for increased efficiency .
One real-world example is the vast underutilization of a vast portion of the world 's population .
You can even have economic growth without any increase in physical resource usage .
Here 's a toy example .
Suppose you lived in a world with zero population growth , and one in which every person renewably grew their own food and renewably built their own shelter , with no other economic activity .
Now imagine this community discovered music ( and at the same time money ! ) .
There is lots of room for economic growth as people learn to entertain themselves and others , and as they get better and better at it , and people are willing to pay more to hear the better performers .
Then one of the really good performers realizes that it 'd better if he pays some bad performer to take over the job of growing his food and building/maintaining his shelter , and the bad performer realizes she 's better at that than making music .
More growth .
So you have lots and lots of room for economic growth even if people are only shuffling around into jobs at which they are getting better in lieu of jobs they 're not so good at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course there are resource limits.
"Unlimited growth" is a reasonable thing to talk about *now* because of two facts, below.
So, yes, we're limited in our physical resources, but until we are using them maximally efficiently, there's lots of room for economic growth.
It may be debatable how long we have until we start to hit physical limits, but it is very likely not this year, nor 10 years from now, nor even 30 years from now.
(Look up world population in Wikipedia for projections.
) 

1.
Economic activity is proportional to population size (usually).
So as long as the world's population keeps growing, the economy can keep growing.
(And as an aside, I have always interpreted economists' talk about growth to mean: "keeping up with the population".
Doing so makes all the talk about growth seem more reasonable.
)   

2.
Economic activity, and hence growth, is not only a measure the use of resources, but a measure of the efficiency with which we use those resources.
We have lots of room for increased efficiency.
One real-world example is the vast underutilization of a vast portion of the world's population.
You can even have economic growth without any increase in physical resource usage.
Here's a toy example.
Suppose you lived in a world with zero population growth, and one in which every person renewably grew their own food and renewably built their own shelter, with no other economic activity.
Now imagine this community discovered music (and at the same time money!).
There is lots of room for economic growth as people learn to entertain themselves and others, and as they get better and better at it, and people are willing to pay more to hear the better performers.
Then one of the really good performers realizes that it'd better if he pays some bad performer to take over the job of growing his food and building/maintaining his shelter, and the bad performer realizes she's better at that than making music.
More growth.
So you have lots and lots of room for economic growth even if people are only shuffling around into jobs at which they are getting better in lieu of jobs they're not so good at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042106</id>
	<title>Pareto principle describes economic equilibrium</title>
	<author>scum-e-bag</author>
	<datestamp>1257785460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way to describe equilibrium in the macro-economic environment was done just over 100 years with the Pareto principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way to describe equilibrium in the macro-economic environment was done just over 100 years with the Pareto principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way to describe equilibrium in the macro-economic environment was done just over 100 years with the Pareto principle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039746</id>
	<title>ummm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1257768360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Some computer scientists are calling this the biggest development in game theory in a decade."</i>
<br>
<br>
Computer scientists and economists?  What about the actual mathematicians?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some computer scientists are calling this the biggest development in game theory in a decade .
" Computer scientists and economists ?
What about the actual mathematicians ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some computer scientists are calling this the biggest development in game theory in a decade.
"


Computer scientists and economists?
What about the actual mathematicians?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30052066</id>
	<title>3-body gravity problem</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1257850140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It reminds of the fact that you cannot have 3 planets circling each other in a stable pattern.<br>
In the market, having more people changes the solution. Individuals are not trying to make the market equal, they are trying to make their own position equal in reference to the other people, but <br>
1) they deal with a lot more people than the kicker-goalie situation and<br>
2) they do not have knowledge of the entire market</htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds of the fact that you can not have 3 planets circling each other in a stable pattern .
In the market , having more people changes the solution .
Individuals are not trying to make the market equal , they are trying to make their own position equal in reference to the other people , but 1 ) they deal with a lot more people than the kicker-goalie situation and 2 ) they do not have knowledge of the entire market</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds of the fact that you cannot have 3 planets circling each other in a stable pattern.
In the market, having more people changes the solution.
Individuals are not trying to make the market equal, they are trying to make their own position equal in reference to the other people, but 
1) they deal with a lot more people than the kicker-goalie situation and
2) they do not have knowledge of the entire market</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257765960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are entire schools of economics that criticize the mainstream schools using this very line of reasoning. IIRC, the Austrian school economists (Mises, Menger, et. al) never use any sort of math at all, except in trying to determine things such as the rate of inflation. There are others, too, but their names escape me at the moment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are entire schools of economics that criticize the mainstream schools using this very line of reasoning .
IIRC , the Austrian school economists ( Mises , Menger , et .
al ) never use any sort of math at all , except in trying to determine things such as the rate of inflation .
There are others , too , but their names escape me at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are entire schools of economics that criticize the mainstream schools using this very line of reasoning.
IIRC, the Austrian school economists (Mises, Menger, et.
al) never use any sort of math at all, except in trying to determine things such as the rate of inflation.
There are others, too, but their names escape me at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040332</id>
	<title>Misses the post-scarcity point; digital abundance</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1257771300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest problem we face is post-scarcity technologies of abundance wielded by scarcity-obsessed people, because things like biotech, robotech, infotech, nanotech, nucleartech, and so on make terrible, if ironic, weapons. It is ironic to use military robots to fight over economic issues the robots make obsolete. It is ironic to use nuclear missiles built with advanced materials to fight over oil supplies that nuclear power or solar energy make unimportant. It even takes more electricity to produce a gallon of gasoline than an electric car takes to go the same distance, if you really want some deep irony -- we'd use less electricity if we switched to electric cars. So, as an example of post-scarcity thinking, considering that and safety issues, our society would save money and have lower taxes if everyone got a free-to-the user safe luxury electric car.<br> <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en" title="google.com">http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en</a> [google.com] </p><p>From Post-scarcity Princeton:<br> <a href="http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html" title="pdfernhout.net">http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html</a> [pdfernhout.net] <br>"""<br>* Some comments on the PU Economics department and related research directions from a post-scarcity perspective</p><p>The PU economics department, of course, should be abolished as part of this transition.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>OK, that will never happen, so it should be at least "strongly admonished" for past misbehavior.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>What misbehavior? Essentially, the PU Economics department has taken part in a global effort to build an economic "psychofrakulator". How does a psychofrakulator work? Consider a paraphrase of something Doc Heller says in the movie Mystery Men:<br>
    <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132347/quotes" title="imdb.com">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132347/quotes</a> [imdb.com] </p><p>
    Dr. Heller: It's a psychofrakulator. They used to say it couldn't be built. The equations were so complex that most of the scientists that worked on it wound up in the insane asylum [in Chicago].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It creates a cloud of [dollar denomiated] radically-fluctuating free-deviant chaotrons which penetrate the synaptic relays [via television]. It's concatenated with a synchronous transport switch [of values from long term seven generation life-affirming love of caring to short-term immediate profit and immediate gratification suicidal death-affirming love of money] that creates a virtual tributary [back to large corporations]. It's focused onto a biobolic reflector [of the elite controlled mass media] and what happens is that [economic] hallucinations become reality and the [global] brain [and global ecosystem] is literally fried from within.</p><p>Or in other words:<br>
    "Screwed: What 30 Years of Conservative Economics Feels Like"<br>
    <a href="http://granby01033.blogspot.com/2008/04/screwed-what-30-years-of-conservative.html" title="blogspot.com">http://granby01033.blogspot.com/2008/04/screwed-what-30-years-of-conservative.html</a> [blogspot.com] <br>Or:<br>
    <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic\_economics" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic\_economics</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>And:<br>
    "Obituary: Conservative Economic Policy"<br>
    <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/19/obituary\_conservative\_economic/" title="talkingpointsmemo.com">http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/19/obituary\_conservative\_economic/</a> [talkingpointsmemo.com] </p><p>
    Conservative economic policy is dead. It committed suicide. Its allegiance to market solutions, tax cuts and spending cuts, supply-side nonsense, manipulative and corrosive ties to industry and the rich, have left it wholly unable to cope with the challenges we face. Its terribly limited toolbox simply cannot address the economic insecurities and opportunities generated by today's global, interconnected, polluted, insecure, dyna</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem we face is post-scarcity technologies of abundance wielded by scarcity-obsessed people , because things like biotech , robotech , infotech , nanotech , nucleartech , and so on make terrible , if ironic , weapons .
It is ironic to use military robots to fight over economic issues the robots make obsolete .
It is ironic to use nuclear missiles built with advanced materials to fight over oil supplies that nuclear power or solar energy make unimportant .
It even takes more electricity to produce a gallon of gasoline than an electric car takes to go the same distance , if you really want some deep irony -- we 'd use less electricity if we switched to electric cars .
So , as an example of post-scarcity thinking , considering that and safety issues , our society would save money and have lower taxes if everyone got a free-to-the user safe luxury electric car .
http : //groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2 ? hl = en [ google.com ] From Post-scarcity Princeton : http : //www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html [ pdfernhout.net ] " " " * Some comments on the PU Economics department and related research directions from a post-scarcity perspectiveThe PU economics department , of course , should be abolished as part of this transition .
: - ) OK , that will never happen , so it should be at least " strongly admonished " for past misbehavior .
: - ( What misbehavior ?
Essentially , the PU Economics department has taken part in a global effort to build an economic " psychofrakulator " .
How does a psychofrakulator work ?
Consider a paraphrase of something Doc Heller says in the movie Mystery Men : http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0132347/quotes [ imdb.com ] Dr. Heller : It 's a psychofrakulator .
They used to say it could n't be built .
The equations were so complex that most of the scientists that worked on it wound up in the insane asylum [ in Chicago ] .
... It creates a cloud of [ dollar denomiated ] radically-fluctuating free-deviant chaotrons which penetrate the synaptic relays [ via television ] .
It 's concatenated with a synchronous transport switch [ of values from long term seven generation life-affirming love of caring to short-term immediate profit and immediate gratification suicidal death-affirming love of money ] that creates a virtual tributary [ back to large corporations ] .
It 's focused onto a biobolic reflector [ of the elite controlled mass media ] and what happens is that [ economic ] hallucinations become reality and the [ global ] brain [ and global ecosystem ] is literally fried from within.Or in other words : " Screwed : What 30 Years of Conservative Economics Feels Like " http : //granby01033.blogspot.com/2008/04/screwed-what-30-years-of-conservative.html [ blogspot.com ] Or : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic \ _economics [ wikipedia.org ] And : " Obituary : Conservative Economic Policy " http : //tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/19/obituary \ _conservative \ _economic/ [ talkingpointsmemo.com ] Conservative economic policy is dead .
It committed suicide .
Its allegiance to market solutions , tax cuts and spending cuts , supply-side nonsense , manipulative and corrosive ties to industry and the rich , have left it wholly unable to cope with the challenges we face .
Its terribly limited toolbox simply can not address the economic insecurities and opportunities generated by today 's global , interconnected , polluted , insecure , dyna</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem we face is post-scarcity technologies of abundance wielded by scarcity-obsessed people, because things like biotech, robotech, infotech, nanotech, nucleartech, and so on make terrible, if ironic, weapons.
It is ironic to use military robots to fight over economic issues the robots make obsolete.
It is ironic to use nuclear missiles built with advanced materials to fight over oil supplies that nuclear power or solar energy make unimportant.
It even takes more electricity to produce a gallon of gasoline than an electric car takes to go the same distance, if you really want some deep irony -- we'd use less electricity if we switched to electric cars.
So, as an example of post-scarcity thinking, considering that and safety issues, our society would save money and have lower taxes if everyone got a free-to-the user safe luxury electric car.
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en [google.com] From Post-scarcity Princeton: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html [pdfernhout.net] """* Some comments on the PU Economics department and related research directions from a post-scarcity perspectiveThe PU economics department, of course, should be abolished as part of this transition.
:-)OK, that will never happen, so it should be at least "strongly admonished" for past misbehavior.
:-(What misbehavior?
Essentially, the PU Economics department has taken part in a global effort to build an economic "psychofrakulator".
How does a psychofrakulator work?
Consider a paraphrase of something Doc Heller says in the movie Mystery Men:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0132347/quotes [imdb.com] 
    Dr. Heller: It's a psychofrakulator.
They used to say it couldn't be built.
The equations were so complex that most of the scientists that worked on it wound up in the insane asylum [in Chicago].
... It creates a cloud of [dollar denomiated] radically-fluctuating free-deviant chaotrons which penetrate the synaptic relays [via television].
It's concatenated with a synchronous transport switch [of values from long term seven generation life-affirming love of caring to short-term immediate profit and immediate gratification suicidal death-affirming love of money] that creates a virtual tributary [back to large corporations].
It's focused onto a biobolic reflector [of the elite controlled mass media] and what happens is that [economic] hallucinations become reality and the [global] brain [and global ecosystem] is literally fried from within.Or in other words:
    "Screwed: What 30 Years of Conservative Economics Feels Like"
    http://granby01033.blogspot.com/2008/04/screwed-what-30-years-of-conservative.html [blogspot.com] Or:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-autistic\_economics [wikipedia.org] And:
    "Obituary: Conservative Economic Policy"
    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/19/obituary\_conservative\_economic/ [talkingpointsmemo.com] 
    Conservative economic policy is dead.
It committed suicide.
Its allegiance to market solutions, tax cuts and spending cuts, supply-side nonsense, manipulative and corrosive ties to industry and the rich, have left it wholly unable to cope with the challenges we face.
Its terribly limited toolbox simply cannot address the economic insecurities and opportunities generated by today's global, interconnected, polluted, insecure, dyna</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039936</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.</i> </p><p>But those limits are not so easily fixed or defined.</p><p> The microchip is the perfect example.</p><p>It doesn't exist before 1958. It's economic, technological  and social impact scarcely felt before the 1980s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account , but at least they should get the boundary conditions right , and one of those is that our resources are limited .
But those limits are not so easily fixed or defined .
The microchip is the perfect example.It does n't exist before 1958 .
It 's economic , technological and social impact scarcely felt before the 1980s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.
But those limits are not so easily fixed or defined.
The microchip is the perfect example.It doesn't exist before 1958.
It's economic, technological  and social impact scarcely felt before the 1980s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042978</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257883740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People are dying right now because of political and economic limits.</p></div><p>Correction: people are dying because of political limits. Economics is keeping up just fine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are dying right now because of political and economic limits.Correction : people are dying because of political limits .
Economics is keeping up just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are dying right now because of political and economic limits.Correction: people are dying because of political limits.
Economics is keeping up just fine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044770</id>
	<title>WoW!</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1257864180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to see how this might be able to harness me some more gold while farming on WoW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to see how this might be able to harness me some more gold while farming on WoW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to see how this might be able to harness me some more gold while farming on WoW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30046010</id>
	<title>Anyone remember derivatives trading?</title>
	<author>drainbramage</author>
	<datestamp>1257870660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh golly, new math making me a derivatives trading expert!<br>What could possibly go wrong?<br>Well, if something does go wrong I'll be too big to fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh golly , new math making me a derivatives trading expert ! What could possibly go wrong ? Well , if something does go wrong I 'll be too big to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh golly, new math making me a derivatives trading expert!What could possibly go wrong?Well, if something does go wrong I'll be too big to fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039338</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257765900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Economics involves people. So...</p><p>"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem." - Douglas Adams</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Economics involves people .
So... " To summarize the summary of the summary : people are a problem .
" - Douglas Adams</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economics involves people.
So..."To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
" - Douglas Adams</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Marcika</author>
	<datestamp>1257769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, I'm not surprised there is such school. My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of math, specifically, they don't seem to understand the exponential function, otherwise they would not speak of "growth" all the time.
I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.</p></div><p>Your impression is wrong. Every economist knows about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Robert\_Malthus" title="wikipedia.org">Thomas Robert Malthus</a> [wikipedia.org] and Malthusian economics -- for the pre-industrial era his model best explains demographics and the limits of growth. It only so happened that just after he published his thoughts, the industrial revolution happened and technological progress pushed the boundaries of growth further and further - in an exponential manner.</p><p>Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie? Limited by fossil fuels? Or a single planet's worth of solar energy? Maybe a Dyson sphere's worth of solar energy? Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm not surprised there is such school .
My impression is , that economists in general do n't have a good grasp of math , specifically , they do n't seem to understand the exponential function , otherwise they would not speak of " growth " all the time .
I 'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account , but at least they should get the boundary conditions right , and one of those is that our resources are limited.Your impression is wrong .
Every economist knows about Thomas Robert Malthus [ wikipedia.org ] and Malthusian economics -- for the pre-industrial era his model best explains demographics and the limits of growth .
It only so happened that just after he published his thoughts , the industrial revolution happened and technological progress pushed the boundaries of growth further and further - in an exponential manner.Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie ?
Limited by fossil fuels ?
Or a single planet 's worth of solar energy ?
Maybe a Dyson sphere 's worth of solar energy ?
Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm not surprised there is such school.
My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of math, specifically, they don't seem to understand the exponential function, otherwise they would not speak of "growth" all the time.
I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.Your impression is wrong.
Every economist knows about Thomas Robert Malthus [wikipedia.org] and Malthusian economics -- for the pre-industrial era his model best explains demographics and the limits of growth.
It only so happened that just after he published his thoughts, the industrial revolution happened and technological progress pushed the boundaries of growth further and further - in an exponential manner.Would you dare to make an exact forecast where the limits of growth lie?
Limited by fossil fuels?
Or a single planet's worth of solar energy?
Maybe a Dyson sphere's worth of solar energy?
Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043460</id>
	<title>Re:Article misrepresents complexity theory</title>
	<author>uid7306m</author>
	<datestamp>1257847980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, don't forget that there are good \_approximate\_ solutions for many NP problems.</p><p>NP can be a red herring in the real world: we don't need to solve (for example) the traveling salesman problem \_exactly\_.   So long as we get within 1\% or so of the optimum solution, that's good enough for most purposes.</p><p>(Of course, we don't have good approximations for all NP problems, only some of them, so it isn't a total red herring.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , do n't forget that there are good \ _approximate \ _ solutions for many NP problems.NP can be a red herring in the real world : we do n't need to solve ( for example ) the traveling salesman problem \ _exactly \ _ .
So long as we get within 1 \ % or so of the optimum solution , that 's good enough for most purposes .
( Of course , we do n't have good approximations for all NP problems , only some of them , so it is n't a total red herring .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, don't forget that there are good \_approximate\_ solutions for many NP problems.NP can be a red herring in the real world: we don't need to solve (for example) the traveling salesman problem \_exactly\_.
So long as we get within 1\% or so of the optimum solution, that's good enough for most purposes.
(Of course, we don't have good approximations for all NP problems, only some of them, so it isn't a total red herring.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040118</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>yali</author>
	<datestamp>1257770160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of math</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't think the biggest problem is economists' grasp of math. Rather, it's that (a) the people implementing the economists' mathematical theories <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp\_quant?currentPage=all" title="wired.com">don't have a good grasp of the math</a> [wired.com], and (b) economists don't have a good grasp of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html" title="nytimes.com">the people their math is supposed to model</a> [nytimes.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My impression is , that economists in general do n't have a good grasp of mathI do n't think the biggest problem is economists ' grasp of math .
Rather , it 's that ( a ) the people implementing the economists ' mathematical theories do n't have a good grasp of the math [ wired.com ] , and ( b ) economists do n't have a good grasp of the people their math is supposed to model [ nytimes.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of mathI don't think the biggest problem is economists' grasp of math.
Rather, it's that (a) the people implementing the economists' mathematical theories don't have a good grasp of the math [wired.com], and (b) economists don't have a good grasp of the people their math is supposed to model [nytimes.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040692</id>
	<title>Re:"Non-Deterministic"</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1257773340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pardon me. I did state that incorrectly. I did not mean that they might not be solvable, but it is impossible to determine <i>in advance</i> whether they are solvable in a "reasonable" amount of time. "Polynomial" time encompasses some very big numbers: millions of years for example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon me .
I did state that incorrectly .
I did not mean that they might not be solvable , but it is impossible to determine in advance whether they are solvable in a " reasonable " amount of time .
" Polynomial " time encompasses some very big numbers : millions of years for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon me.
I did state that incorrectly.
I did not mean that they might not be solvable, but it is impossible to determine in advance whether they are solvable in a "reasonable" amount of time.
"Polynomial" time encompasses some very big numbers: millions of years for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039628</id>
	<title>any class works</title>
	<author>hort\_wort</author>
	<datestamp>1257767580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to learn economics?  Figure out how to afford the textbooks and supplementary math software you need to take the course.  Done.</p><p>It's always easy to learn how to spread out a dollar when you're broke.  I can see how the MIT guys might have trouble with it though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to learn economics ?
Figure out how to afford the textbooks and supplementary math software you need to take the course .
Done.It 's always easy to learn how to spread out a dollar when you 're broke .
I can see how the MIT guys might have trouble with it though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to learn economics?
Figure out how to afford the textbooks and supplementary math software you need to take the course.
Done.It's always easy to learn how to spread out a dollar when you're broke.
I can see how the MIT guys might have trouble with it though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039654</id>
	<title>Always mount a scratch economy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257767700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://edp.org/monkey.htm" title="edp.org" rel="nofollow">or monkey, whichever.</a> [edp.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or monkey , whichever .
[ edp.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or monkey, whichever.
[edp.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042828</id>
	<title>Open Source</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1257795180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, one thing they could learn from open source is that it can be rewarding to forgo profits altogether. Now that WOULD be a revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , one thing they could learn from open source is that it can be rewarding to forgo profits altogether .
Now that WOULD be a revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, one thing they could learn from open source is that it can be rewarding to forgo profits altogether.
Now that WOULD be a revolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216</id>
	<title>The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1257765480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Polynomial time approximate, probabilistic or special case solutions to NP problems are wide spread. The problem is that real human being in economics can not be easily described by an equation - and when they can be, they quickly change their behavior based on that knowledge. What both computer scientists and economists need to learn is stop being geeks addicted to a single theory and start dealing with people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Polynomial time approximate , probabilistic or special case solutions to NP problems are wide spread .
The problem is that real human being in economics can not be easily described by an equation - and when they can be , they quickly change their behavior based on that knowledge .
What both computer scientists and economists need to learn is stop being geeks addicted to a single theory and start dealing with people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polynomial time approximate, probabilistic or special case solutions to NP problems are wide spread.
The problem is that real human being in economics can not be easily described by an equation - and when they can be, they quickly change their behavior based on that knowledge.
What both computer scientists and economists need to learn is stop being geeks addicted to a single theory and start dealing with people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30049372</id>
	<title>Erm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but economists have been using game theory for years and years. Don't try to make it seem like they are ignorant of these techniques or can't understand the ramifications of these discoveries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but economists have been using game theory for years and years .
Do n't try to make it seem like they are ignorant of these techniques or ca n't understand the ramifications of these discoveries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but economists have been using game theory for years and years.
Don't try to make it seem like they are ignorant of these techniques or can't understand the ramifications of these discoveries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040146</id>
	<title>We've been here before . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was the MIT and Ivy League mathematicians who got the economy into its current troubles.  This sounds like nothing more than a new set of 'quants.'  But, then again, there will always be the next big thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the MIT and Ivy League mathematicians who got the economy into its current troubles .
This sounds like nothing more than a new set of 'quants .
' But , then again , there will always be the next big thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the MIT and Ivy League mathematicians who got the economy into its current troubles.
This sounds like nothing more than a new set of 'quants.
'  But, then again, there will always be the next big thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039676</id>
	<title>Oh really?</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1257767880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only thing you need to know about game theory is how to cheat and tell credible lies - game over. Where's my stinking award?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing you need to know about game theory is how to cheat and tell credible lies - game over .
Where 's my stinking award ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing you need to know about game theory is how to cheat and tell credible lies - game over.
Where's my stinking award?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041778</id>
	<title>What everyone forgets is...</title>
	<author>Dogbertius</author>
	<datestamp>1257782220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In economics, the real world is ALWAYS a special case!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In economics , the real world is ALWAYS a special case !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In economics, the real world is ALWAYS a special case!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039352</id>
	<title>Yadda-Yadda-Yadda: But......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257765960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is P = NP ?</p><p>Yours In Novosibirsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is P = NP ? Yours In Novosibirsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is P = NP ?Yours In Novosibirsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040926</id>
	<title>Re:Nice setup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257774840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What can CS teach ECON?</p><p>How to crash routinely and have people shrug it off as normal.</p></div><p>You're confusing CS in general with Microsoft.  Don't worry, it's a common misconception.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What can CS teach ECON ? How to crash routinely and have people shrug it off as normal.You 're confusing CS in general with Microsoft .
Do n't worry , it 's a common misconception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can CS teach ECON?How to crash routinely and have people shrug it off as normal.You're confusing CS in general with Microsoft.
Don't worry, it's a common misconception.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30056684</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1257878880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One less than those who subsist thanks to the works of that 1\%.</p><p>"Give a man a fish..." and all that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One less than those who subsist thanks to the works of that 1 \ % .
" Give a man a fish... " and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One less than those who subsist thanks to the works of that 1\%.
"Give a man a fish..." and all that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044038</id>
	<title>people adapt...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257856500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,</p><p>I am a professionnal poker player, and the first thing I learned was you had to adapt to your opponents game.<br>Most poker situations depend on who is facing you, sometimes raising with 72 or folding Kings is a good idea.</p><p>Now there are a lot of technical skills involved in poker, but like in economics, when you find a model that works, it gets obselete pretty fast.<br>For example if I see my opponent is weak and raise him with 72, I will do this with pretty much any hand. But unless he is a total moron, he will start changing his game and play his hands stronger, and the speed at which he adapats depends on the player he is.</p><p>In chess, for example, you can usually evaluate a move in terms of position gain and this move will ALWAYS have the same evaluation regardless of which evaluation you use. In poker or economics, there is no certainty.</p><p>I really do not consider this "discovery" to be one.<br>Computer science often proves what we already know but just haven't proven yet, and it will be centuries before we build a computer better than the human mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi,I am a professionnal poker player , and the first thing I learned was you had to adapt to your opponents game.Most poker situations depend on who is facing you , sometimes raising with 72 or folding Kings is a good idea.Now there are a lot of technical skills involved in poker , but like in economics , when you find a model that works , it gets obselete pretty fast.For example if I see my opponent is weak and raise him with 72 , I will do this with pretty much any hand .
But unless he is a total moron , he will start changing his game and play his hands stronger , and the speed at which he adapats depends on the player he is.In chess , for example , you can usually evaluate a move in terms of position gain and this move will ALWAYS have the same evaluation regardless of which evaluation you use .
In poker or economics , there is no certainty.I really do not consider this " discovery " to be one.Computer science often proves what we already know but just have n't proven yet , and it will be centuries before we build a computer better than the human mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,I am a professionnal poker player, and the first thing I learned was you had to adapt to your opponents game.Most poker situations depend on who is facing you, sometimes raising with 72 or folding Kings is a good idea.Now there are a lot of technical skills involved in poker, but like in economics, when you find a model that works, it gets obselete pretty fast.For example if I see my opponent is weak and raise him with 72, I will do this with pretty much any hand.
But unless he is a total moron, he will start changing his game and play his hands stronger, and the speed at which he adapats depends on the player he is.In chess, for example, you can usually evaluate a move in terms of position gain and this move will ALWAYS have the same evaluation regardless of which evaluation you use.
In poker or economics, there is no certainty.I really do not consider this "discovery" to be one.Computer science often proves what we already know but just haven't proven yet, and it will be centuries before we build a computer better than the human mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042698</id>
	<title>Re:Its easy!</title>
	<author>d'baba</author>
	<datestamp>1257793500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The general solution to poker is to end the game with everyone else's money to make yourself richer. Some people have already applied this strategy to the economy.</p></div><p>Which is, of course, Score: 5 Sad, because of the vast number of people who think this is the 'Natural Way of Things'.
</p><p>
---<br>
Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe. The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The general solution to poker is to end the game with everyone else 's money to make yourself richer .
Some people have already applied this strategy to the economy.Which is , of course , Score : 5 Sad , because of the vast number of people who think this is the 'Natural Way of Things' .
--- Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe .
The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The general solution to poker is to end the game with everyone else's money to make yourself richer.
Some people have already applied this strategy to the economy.Which is, of course, Score: 5 Sad, because of the vast number of people who think this is the 'Natural Way of Things'.
---
Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe.
The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040308</id>
	<title>Foundation</title>
	<author>RickyG</author>
	<datestamp>1257771120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, does anyone remember the Foundation series?

Basicly a all-knowing and wise person comes up with the "key" to prodicting the economic and social progression of society.

All is well, until a random factor shows up, and crashes the whole party, and causing the system to collaspe.

Do not trust in your math to lead humans...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , does anyone remember the Foundation series ?
Basicly a all-knowing and wise person comes up with the " key " to prodicting the economic and social progression of society .
All is well , until a random factor shows up , and crashes the whole party , and causing the system to collaspe .
Do not trust in your math to lead humans.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, does anyone remember the Foundation series?
Basicly a all-knowing and wise person comes up with the "key" to prodicting the economic and social progression of society.
All is well, until a random factor shows up, and crashes the whole party, and causing the system to collaspe.
Do not trust in your math to lead humans...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042258</id>
	<title>NP begat FNP</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257787440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those that know their Bible, did you happen to read that as NP begat FNP who begat TFNP , and TFNP begat PPAD<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those that know their Bible , did you happen to read that as NP begat FNP who begat TFNP , and TFNP begat PPAD .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those that know their Bible, did you happen to read that as NP begat FNP who begat TFNP , and TFNP begat PPAD ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040506</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Tacvek</author>
	<datestamp>1257772200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not so much that they don't understand, as thee mythical free market collapses badly without growth, or rather it could work, but not in the same way we are used to.</p><p>The system assumes that net consumption and net production will both continue to increase at some rate. (It need not be exponential, but there must be non-zero increase). We know that that cannot hold indefinitely.  For such to occur, either the population needs to increase, or the population being held steady, that production become more efficient, leaving the population to have more time for consumption. However, there is also limits to how far that can extend, since there is no such thing as a truly unlimited resource. Even the size of the universe is believed to be finite.</p><p>An economy with a positive interest rate is sustainable only with growth. Without growth, if you lend out 4 dollars and expect more than 4 dollars back, that could happen, but only with inflation at a rate that makes the four dollars you get back equal the original four dollars in buying power. In such an event, there would be no benefit to ever lending money out, so rate of inflation would tend to zero.</p><p>An economy with a positive interest rate is a pyramid scheme, and will eventually fail. However, at the moment, the world literally has so much invested into such economies that they are the only type we can see. They also happen to be what economists study, since they are what exist in the current world. We are rapidly approaching the moment of truth. It may not occur in our lifetime, but, if not, likely only shortly thereafter. At that point the human race must either rethink economics, or some sort of disaster must occur. If say 95\% of the human population was wiped out, then the same economic model could almost certainly continue to work, since growth could occur by means of population growth.</p><p>Otherwise the human race is in store for a rude awakening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not so much that they do n't understand , as thee mythical free market collapses badly without growth , or rather it could work , but not in the same way we are used to.The system assumes that net consumption and net production will both continue to increase at some rate .
( It need not be exponential , but there must be non-zero increase ) .
We know that that can not hold indefinitely .
For such to occur , either the population needs to increase , or the population being held steady , that production become more efficient , leaving the population to have more time for consumption .
However , there is also limits to how far that can extend , since there is no such thing as a truly unlimited resource .
Even the size of the universe is believed to be finite.An economy with a positive interest rate is sustainable only with growth .
Without growth , if you lend out 4 dollars and expect more than 4 dollars back , that could happen , but only with inflation at a rate that makes the four dollars you get back equal the original four dollars in buying power .
In such an event , there would be no benefit to ever lending money out , so rate of inflation would tend to zero.An economy with a positive interest rate is a pyramid scheme , and will eventually fail .
However , at the moment , the world literally has so much invested into such economies that they are the only type we can see .
They also happen to be what economists study , since they are what exist in the current world .
We are rapidly approaching the moment of truth .
It may not occur in our lifetime , but , if not , likely only shortly thereafter .
At that point the human race must either rethink economics , or some sort of disaster must occur .
If say 95 \ % of the human population was wiped out , then the same economic model could almost certainly continue to work , since growth could occur by means of population growth.Otherwise the human race is in store for a rude awakening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not so much that they don't understand, as thee mythical free market collapses badly without growth, or rather it could work, but not in the same way we are used to.The system assumes that net consumption and net production will both continue to increase at some rate.
(It need not be exponential, but there must be non-zero increase).
We know that that cannot hold indefinitely.
For such to occur, either the population needs to increase, or the population being held steady, that production become more efficient, leaving the population to have more time for consumption.
However, there is also limits to how far that can extend, since there is no such thing as a truly unlimited resource.
Even the size of the universe is believed to be finite.An economy with a positive interest rate is sustainable only with growth.
Without growth, if you lend out 4 dollars and expect more than 4 dollars back, that could happen, but only with inflation at a rate that makes the four dollars you get back equal the original four dollars in buying power.
In such an event, there would be no benefit to ever lending money out, so rate of inflation would tend to zero.An economy with a positive interest rate is a pyramid scheme, and will eventually fail.
However, at the moment, the world literally has so much invested into such economies that they are the only type we can see.
They also happen to be what economists study, since they are what exist in the current world.
We are rapidly approaching the moment of truth.
It may not occur in our lifetime, but, if not, likely only shortly thereafter.
At that point the human race must either rethink economics, or some sort of disaster must occur.
If say 95\% of the human population was wiped out, then the same economic model could almost certainly continue to work, since growth could occur by means of population growth.Otherwise the human race is in store for a rude awakening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040752</id>
	<title>Fail to see the big deal</title>
	<author>VampireByte</author>
	<datestamp>1257773700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have graduate degrees in both Computer Science and Economics and this commonality was so obvious to me over a decade ago that it wouldn't have seemed worth writing about. Hell, you even study Von Neumann in both of these fields at the undergraduate level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have graduate degrees in both Computer Science and Economics and this commonality was so obvious to me over a decade ago that it would n't have seemed worth writing about .
Hell , you even study Von Neumann in both of these fields at the undergraduate level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have graduate degrees in both Computer Science and Economics and this commonality was so obvious to me over a decade ago that it wouldn't have seemed worth writing about.
Hell, you even study Von Neumann in both of these fields at the undergraduate level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646</id>
	<title>Nice setup</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1257767700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What can CS teach ECON?</p><p>
How to crash routinely and have people shrug it off as normal.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What can CS teach ECON ?
How to crash routinely and have people shrug it off as normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can CS teach ECON?
How to crash routinely and have people shrug it off as normal.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039458</id>
	<title>Article misrepresents complexity theory</title>
	<author>kramer2718</author>
	<datestamp>1257766620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:

"By showing that some common game-theoretical problems are so hard that they&rsquo;d take the lifetime of the universe to solve, Daskalakis is suggesting that they can&rsquo;t accurately represent what happens in the real world."

But he didn't actually show this.  He showed  (again from TFA):

"Daskalakis proved that the Nash equilibrium belongs to a subset of NP consisting of hard problems with the property that a solution to one can be adapted to solve all the others." I.e. computing the Nash equilibrium is NP-complete.

These problems have no efficient solution if (and only if) P != NP.  That is if there is a polynomial (efficient) solution for any of these, then there is a polynomial time solution for all.  We don't know WHETHER THAT'S TRUE.  Computer scientists suspect very strongly that there is no polynomial time solution for these problems, but it isn't known for sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " By showing that some common game-theoretical problems are so hard that they    d take the lifetime of the universe to solve , Daskalakis is suggesting that they can    t accurately represent what happens in the real world .
" But he did n't actually show this .
He showed ( again from TFA ) : " Daskalakis proved that the Nash equilibrium belongs to a subset of NP consisting of hard problems with the property that a solution to one can be adapted to solve all the others .
" I.e .
computing the Nash equilibrium is NP-complete .
These problems have no efficient solution if ( and only if ) P ! = NP .
That is if there is a polynomial ( efficient ) solution for any of these , then there is a polynomial time solution for all .
We do n't know WHETHER THAT 'S TRUE .
Computer scientists suspect very strongly that there is no polynomial time solution for these problems , but it is n't known for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:

"By showing that some common game-theoretical problems are so hard that they’d take the lifetime of the universe to solve, Daskalakis is suggesting that they can’t accurately represent what happens in the real world.
"

But he didn't actually show this.
He showed  (again from TFA):

"Daskalakis proved that the Nash equilibrium belongs to a subset of NP consisting of hard problems with the property that a solution to one can be adapted to solve all the others.
" I.e.
computing the Nash equilibrium is NP-complete.
These problems have no efficient solution if (and only if) P != NP.
That is if there is a polynomial (efficient) solution for any of these, then there is a polynomial time solution for all.
We don't know WHETHER THAT'S TRUE.
Computer scientists suspect very strongly that there is no polynomial time solution for these problems, but it isn't known for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047562</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Friends don't let Friends cite wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Friends do n't let Friends cite wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friends don't let Friends cite wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30046152</id>
	<title>WOW</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1257871200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is what the World of Warcraft should do:</p><p>A) Allow players to go into debt<br>B) Allow players to have credit<br>C) Create things like derivatives that players can trade around.</p><p>Would be interesting to see what happens and how they manage it. They could also try to have one AH across all the servers (likely technically problematic). They all ready have the numbers for a pretty grand experimental in virtual economics, the closer they model reality, the more interesting it would be to see how things react.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what the World of Warcraft should do : A ) Allow players to go into debtB ) Allow players to have creditC ) Create things like derivatives that players can trade around.Would be interesting to see what happens and how they manage it .
They could also try to have one AH across all the servers ( likely technically problematic ) .
They all ready have the numbers for a pretty grand experimental in virtual economics , the closer they model reality , the more interesting it would be to see how things react .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what the World of Warcraft should do:A) Allow players to go into debtB) Allow players to have creditC) Create things like derivatives that players can trade around.Would be interesting to see what happens and how they manage it.
They could also try to have one AH across all the servers (likely technically problematic).
They all ready have the numbers for a pretty grand experimental in virtual economics, the closer they model reality, the more interesting it would be to see how things react.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041236</id>
	<title>Re:No shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257777240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be shocked, the MIT article doesn't even get the simple example of game theory right:</p><blockquote><div><p>One of the simplest examples is the penalty-kick game: In soccer, a penalty kick gives the offensive player a shot on goal with only the goalie defending. The goalie has so little reaction time that she has to guess which half of the goal to protect just as the ball is struck; the shooter tries to go the opposite way. In the game-theory version, the goalie always wins if both players pick the same half of the goal, and the shooter wins if they pick different halves. So each player has two strategies -- go left or go right -- and there are two outcomes -- kicker wins or goalie wins.</p><p>It's probably obvious that the best strategy for both players is to randomly go left or right with equal probability; that way, both will win about half the time.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wrong.  This model of a a real-world game ignores the fact that the goalie has an option:  where he stands.  MIT should stick to the prisoner's dilemma, sports are not their area of expertise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>The best strategy is not random left/right.  It is for the goalie to position himself off-center such that the shooter goes left or right with non-equal probabilities, and the goalie dives with non-equal probabilities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be shocked , the MIT article does n't even get the simple example of game theory right : One of the simplest examples is the penalty-kick game : In soccer , a penalty kick gives the offensive player a shot on goal with only the goalie defending .
The goalie has so little reaction time that she has to guess which half of the goal to protect just as the ball is struck ; the shooter tries to go the opposite way .
In the game-theory version , the goalie always wins if both players pick the same half of the goal , and the shooter wins if they pick different halves .
So each player has two strategies -- go left or go right -- and there are two outcomes -- kicker wins or goalie wins.It 's probably obvious that the best strategy for both players is to randomly go left or right with equal probability ; that way , both will win about half the time.Wrong .
This model of a a real-world game ignores the fact that the goalie has an option : where he stands .
MIT should stick to the prisoner 's dilemma , sports are not their area of expertise : ) The best strategy is not random left/right .
It is for the goalie to position himself off-center such that the shooter goes left or right with non-equal probabilities , and the goalie dives with non-equal probabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be shocked, the MIT article doesn't even get the simple example of game theory right:One of the simplest examples is the penalty-kick game: In soccer, a penalty kick gives the offensive player a shot on goal with only the goalie defending.
The goalie has so little reaction time that she has to guess which half of the goal to protect just as the ball is struck; the shooter tries to go the opposite way.
In the game-theory version, the goalie always wins if both players pick the same half of the goal, and the shooter wins if they pick different halves.
So each player has two strategies -- go left or go right -- and there are two outcomes -- kicker wins or goalie wins.It's probably obvious that the best strategy for both players is to randomly go left or right with equal probability; that way, both will win about half the time.Wrong.
This model of a a real-world game ignores the fact that the goalie has an option:  where he stands.
MIT should stick to the prisoner's dilemma, sports are not their area of expertise :)The best strategy is not random left/right.
It is for the goalie to position himself off-center such that the shooter goes left or right with non-equal probabilities, and the goalie dives with non-equal probabilities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039492</id>
	<title>"Non-Deterministic"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257766800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"More importantly there should be a single solution for one problem that can be adapted to fit all the other problems."</i>
<br> <br>
Not so. There is a reason this class of problems is called "non-deterministic". That is because there is no way to determine, ahead of time, whether a finite solution for this problem exists!
<br> <br>
This discovery means that *<i> <b>IF</b> </i>* there is a solution to one problem belonging to the class, then that solution should be applicable to things like the economy or poker. But it does not, in any way, imply that there "should" be, or "is", a solution. That remains to be seen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" More importantly there should be a single solution for one problem that can be adapted to fit all the other problems .
" Not so .
There is a reason this class of problems is called " non-deterministic " .
That is because there is no way to determine , ahead of time , whether a finite solution for this problem exists !
This discovery means that * IF * there is a solution to one problem belonging to the class , then that solution should be applicable to things like the economy or poker .
But it does not , in any way , imply that there " should " be , or " is " , a solution .
That remains to be seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"More importantly there should be a single solution for one problem that can be adapted to fit all the other problems.
"
 
Not so.
There is a reason this class of problems is called "non-deterministic".
That is because there is no way to determine, ahead of time, whether a finite solution for this problem exists!
This discovery means that * IF * there is a solution to one problem belonging to the class, then that solution should be applicable to things like the economy or poker.
But it does not, in any way, imply that there "should" be, or "is", a solution.
That remains to be seen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039698</id>
	<title>Economics can never be modeled succesfully</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257768060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with economics is the act of constructing a model changes reality. As soon as you take action based on your model, your model (and your actions) now become inputs to the system. You're doomed to forever chase a moving target, the more perfect the model the faster it becomes irrelevant.

At best you can take some low hanging fruit with statistics preying on the ignorance of those less sophisticated. Goldman Sachs and the other HFT banks have this approach down to a science with the day trading crowd. GS's models are sufficient to trade in the noise of day traders and take them to the cleaners, that's why there's the saying "the fastest way to make a small fortune day trading is to start with a large forture". Modeling economics on a large scale though is a fool's errand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with economics is the act of constructing a model changes reality .
As soon as you take action based on your model , your model ( and your actions ) now become inputs to the system .
You 're doomed to forever chase a moving target , the more perfect the model the faster it becomes irrelevant .
At best you can take some low hanging fruit with statistics preying on the ignorance of those less sophisticated .
Goldman Sachs and the other HFT banks have this approach down to a science with the day trading crowd .
GS 's models are sufficient to trade in the noise of day traders and take them to the cleaners , that 's why there 's the saying " the fastest way to make a small fortune day trading is to start with a large forture " .
Modeling economics on a large scale though is a fool 's errand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with economics is the act of constructing a model changes reality.
As soon as you take action based on your model, your model (and your actions) now become inputs to the system.
You're doomed to forever chase a moving target, the more perfect the model the faster it becomes irrelevant.
At best you can take some low hanging fruit with statistics preying on the ignorance of those less sophisticated.
Goldman Sachs and the other HFT banks have this approach down to a science with the day trading crowd.
GS's models are sufficient to trade in the noise of day traders and take them to the cleaners, that's why there's the saying "the fastest way to make a small fortune day trading is to start with a large forture".
Modeling economics on a large scale though is a fool's errand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043666</id>
	<title>Parable of the broken window</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257851100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Economists and Mathematicians have always <i>ignored</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_mobility" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Social Mobility</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable\_of\_the\_broken\_window" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> Unintended Consequences</a> [wikipedia.org] in their <i>theorems</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Economists and Mathematicians have always ignored Social Mobility [ wikipedia.org ] and Unintended Consequences [ wikipedia.org ] in their theorems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Economists and Mathematicians have always ignored Social Mobility [wikipedia.org] and  Unintended Consequences [wikipedia.org] in their theorems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040354</id>
	<title>Economics is easy</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1257771360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't eat what you don't grow.   The rest follows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't eat what you do n't grow .
The rest follows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't eat what you don't grow.
The rest follows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039674</id>
	<title>So, this economist and...</title>
	<author>fintler</author>
	<datestamp>1257767880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, this economist and a computer scientist are sitting at a bar.... and these 5 girls walk in....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , this economist and a computer scientist are sitting at a bar.... and these 5 girls walk in... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, this economist and a computer scientist are sitting at a bar.... and these 5 girls walk in....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043732</id>
	<title>Re:No shit</title>
	<author>qc\_dk</author>
	<datestamp>1257852120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or he could drop his pants, or draw a gun and shoot the kicker. Just because a model isn't complete does not mean it's useless.
<p>
In fencing this model is often used: <a href="http://www.lindajdunn.com/fencing/TacticalWheel.html" title="lindajdunn.com">http://www.lindajdunn.com/fencing/TacticalWheel.html</a> [lindajdunn.com]
</p><p>
It does not describe the full tactical game, far from it. But it is a very effective tool for thinking about the bout. And, if you can't deconstruct your opponent's tactics it is very effective
to simply chose randomly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or he could drop his pants , or draw a gun and shoot the kicker .
Just because a model is n't complete does not mean it 's useless .
In fencing this model is often used : http : //www.lindajdunn.com/fencing/TacticalWheel.html [ lindajdunn.com ] It does not describe the full tactical game , far from it .
But it is a very effective tool for thinking about the bout .
And , if you ca n't deconstruct your opponent 's tactics it is very effective to simply chose randomly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or he could drop his pants, or draw a gun and shoot the kicker.
Just because a model isn't complete does not mean it's useless.
In fencing this model is often used: http://www.lindajdunn.com/fencing/TacticalWheel.html [lindajdunn.com]

It does not describe the full tactical game, far from it.
But it is a very effective tool for thinking about the bout.
And, if you can't deconstruct your opponent's tactics it is very effective
to simply chose randomly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042728</id>
	<title>Re:Economics can never be modeled succesfully</title>
	<author>d'baba</author>
	<datestamp>1257793920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heisenberg. 'Nuf said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heisenberg .
'Nuf said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heisenberg.
'Nuf said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30045740</id>
	<title>Economics</title>
	<author>gsgiles</author>
	<datestamp>1257869400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
The long history of failure in econometrics is because it is predicated on a bad axiom that of continuous functions. Human desire and human action vary in all human beings all the time which cannot be quantified.

A better approach is to use graph theory, lattice theory, and functional integration to find bounds on inequalitites from which trends can be observed. The future is always opaque!

Economics is the 'science' with the worst results, it really should not be called a hard science but a social science. No other discipline fails as often, or has as many bad results as economics/econometrics.

This result is from an arrogant post doc who has yet to learn how little he knows.

"An educated man knows how little he knows."
~Marquis De Laplace</htmltext>
<tokenext>The long history of failure in econometrics is because it is predicated on a bad axiom that of continuous functions .
Human desire and human action vary in all human beings all the time which can not be quantified .
A better approach is to use graph theory , lattice theory , and functional integration to find bounds on inequalitites from which trends can be observed .
The future is always opaque !
Economics is the 'science ' with the worst results , it really should not be called a hard science but a social science .
No other discipline fails as often , or has as many bad results as economics/econometrics .
This result is from an arrogant post doc who has yet to learn how little he knows .
" An educated man knows how little he knows .
" ~ Marquis De Laplace</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The long history of failure in econometrics is because it is predicated on a bad axiom that of continuous functions.
Human desire and human action vary in all human beings all the time which cannot be quantified.
A better approach is to use graph theory, lattice theory, and functional integration to find bounds on inequalitites from which trends can be observed.
The future is always opaque!
Economics is the 'science' with the worst results, it really should not be called a hard science but a social science.
No other discipline fails as often, or has as many bad results as economics/econometrics.
This result is from an arrogant post doc who has yet to learn how little he knows.
"An educated man knows how little he knows.
"
~Marquis De Laplace</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039308</id>
	<title>Federal Reserve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257765780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does the Federal Reserve fit into that equation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does the Federal Reserve fit into that equation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does the Federal Reserve fit into that equation?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039854</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257769020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just an impression. Most of them are scientifically illiterate. There are innumerable proofs of this fact, but suffice it to say that when every now and then real mathematicians take a look at their naive mathematical models, they usually demonstrate that they predict evolutions completely different from what economists think they do, or even that the model is basically absurd. See for instance Debreu-Sonnenschein-Mantel.<br>Apart from that, you're absolutely right about the exponential. It's the way markets and especially stock exchanges usually behave (bubble, crash, bubble, crash), and this can readily be understood by considering that the way it works is that people alter the price at which they will buy or sell shares according not to the value they think they represent (dividends) but to how fast their price goes up or down. In other terms, they link a function to its derivative. Duh. Only an economist can't understand that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just an impression .
Most of them are scientifically illiterate .
There are innumerable proofs of this fact , but suffice it to say that when every now and then real mathematicians take a look at their naive mathematical models , they usually demonstrate that they predict evolutions completely different from what economists think they do , or even that the model is basically absurd .
See for instance Debreu-Sonnenschein-Mantel.Apart from that , you 're absolutely right about the exponential .
It 's the way markets and especially stock exchanges usually behave ( bubble , crash , bubble , crash ) , and this can readily be understood by considering that the way it works is that people alter the price at which they will buy or sell shares according not to the value they think they represent ( dividends ) but to how fast their price goes up or down .
In other terms , they link a function to its derivative .
Duh. Only an economist ca n't understand that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just an impression.
Most of them are scientifically illiterate.
There are innumerable proofs of this fact, but suffice it to say that when every now and then real mathematicians take a look at their naive mathematical models, they usually demonstrate that they predict evolutions completely different from what economists think they do, or even that the model is basically absurd.
See for instance Debreu-Sonnenschein-Mantel.Apart from that, you're absolutely right about the exponential.
It's the way markets and especially stock exchanges usually behave (bubble, crash, bubble, crash), and this can readily be understood by considering that the way it works is that people alter the price at which they will buy or sell shares according not to the value they think they represent (dividends) but to how fast their price goes up or down.
In other terms, they link a function to its derivative.
Duh. Only an economist can't understand that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042718</id>
	<title>Re:Nice setup</title>
	<author>d'baba</author>
	<datestamp>1257793860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bravo!
<br>
---<br>
Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe. The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo !
--- Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe .
The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo!
---
Msot plopee hvae the abilit abiitly to raed ttaol gragabe.
The mian sratem mdiea pvreos tihs dlaiy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040796</id>
	<title>Re:Article misrepresents complexity theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257773940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a strong enough suspicion that it's a reasonable simplification to make in a laymans article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a strong enough suspicion that it 's a reasonable simplification to make in a laymans article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a strong enough suspicion that it's a reasonable simplification to make in a laymans article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039520</id>
	<title>risk vs uncertainty</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1257766860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a short article in t'Economist recently.  The difference is that in poker, there's a finite set of outcomes - you can't have a hand that has both the pi of jodhpurs and the duke of pretzels in it.  In economics, unforeseen and even unforeseeable situations can and do occur.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a short article in t'Economist recently .
The difference is that in poker , there 's a finite set of outcomes - you ca n't have a hand that has both the pi of jodhpurs and the duke of pretzels in it .
In economics , unforeseen and even unforeseeable situations can and do occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a short article in t'Economist recently.
The difference is that in poker, there's a finite set of outcomes - you can't have a hand that has both the pi of jodhpurs and the duke of pretzels in it.
In economics, unforeseen and even unforeseeable situations can and do occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039420</id>
	<title>CS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257766440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I take it that computer science would be the most common major among those in slashdot?  This explains the libertarians commenting on health care reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I take it that computer science would be the most common major among those in slashdot ?
This explains the libertarians commenting on health care reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I take it that computer science would be the most common major among those in slashdot?
This explains the libertarians commenting on health care reform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043260</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257844860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years.</p></div><p>Why? The future is not the past - by a similar argument: At the start of 1929 the Dow Jones had increased exponentially for the last 7 years. So it should continue to increase exponentially, at least for the next 2 years...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years.Why ?
The future is not the past - by a similar argument : At the start of 1929 the Dow Jones had increased exponentially for the last 7 years .
So it should continue to increase exponentially , at least for the next 2 years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technological progress moves the goalposts rapidly enough that you have to assume exponential growth punctuated by occasional catastrophes - at least for the next 50 years.Why?
The future is not the past - by a similar argument: At the start of 1929 the Dow Jones had increased exponentially for the last 7 years.
So it should continue to increase exponentially, at least for the next 2 years...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044066</id>
	<title>Re:CS</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257857040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it doesn't.  Anyone with a firm understanding of game theory (which includes all computer scientists) should be able to see the obvious flaws in libertarianism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it does n't .
Anyone with a firm understanding of game theory ( which includes all computer scientists ) should be able to see the obvious flaws in libertarianism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it doesn't.
Anyone with a firm understanding of game theory (which includes all computer scientists) should be able to see the obvious flaws in libertarianism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043038</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1257884400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And most economists <i>ignore</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_mobility" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_mobility</a> [wikipedia.org] factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And most economists ignore http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social \ _mobility [ wikipedia.org ] factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And most economists ignore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_mobility [wikipedia.org] factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042358</id>
	<title>The importance of the find</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone needs to realize that the important point to make is that this is find is based on a non-deterministic principle.</p><p>The idea of this simply assumes if a computer can make every possible guess simultaneously until it arrives at an accepted solution.</p><p>Proving that this economics theory is related to this idea means that the day we are able to invent a non-deterministic machine(quantum computers) the day this problem will be able to be solved with polynomial time complexity.</p><p>The polynomial time complexity generally comes from the verification procedure that is inherent in all non-deterministic algorithms.</p><p>So in the grand scheme of things, this is an amazing find for two reasons.</p><p>1. It means that when we can make a non-deterministic machine that this problem can be solved efficiently.</p><p>2. This is an amazing find because this lies in the domain of economics, the fact that a computer science person was able to relate this problem to an NP problem through transformation is amazing in itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone needs to realize that the important point to make is that this is find is based on a non-deterministic principle.The idea of this simply assumes if a computer can make every possible guess simultaneously until it arrives at an accepted solution.Proving that this economics theory is related to this idea means that the day we are able to invent a non-deterministic machine ( quantum computers ) the day this problem will be able to be solved with polynomial time complexity.The polynomial time complexity generally comes from the verification procedure that is inherent in all non-deterministic algorithms.So in the grand scheme of things , this is an amazing find for two reasons.1 .
It means that when we can make a non-deterministic machine that this problem can be solved efficiently.2 .
This is an amazing find because this lies in the domain of economics , the fact that a computer science person was able to relate this problem to an NP problem through transformation is amazing in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone needs to realize that the important point to make is that this is find is based on a non-deterministic principle.The idea of this simply assumes if a computer can make every possible guess simultaneously until it arrives at an accepted solution.Proving that this economics theory is related to this idea means that the day we are able to invent a non-deterministic machine(quantum computers) the day this problem will be able to be solved with polynomial time complexity.The polynomial time complexity generally comes from the verification procedure that is inherent in all non-deterministic algorithms.So in the grand scheme of things, this is an amazing find for two reasons.1.
It means that when we can make a non-deterministic machine that this problem can be solved efficiently.2.
This is an amazing find because this lies in the domain of economics, the fact that a computer science person was able to relate this problem to an NP problem through transformation is amazing in itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039650</id>
	<title>I believe in the Prep-H theroy of economics</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1257767700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apply to finger and then apply to your butt.</p><p>Why?  Because all your money disappears like so many hemorrhoids.  It gets itchy and needs to be gotten rid of.  Spending your money makes the itch go away, just like Prep-H.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apply to finger and then apply to your butt.Why ?
Because all your money disappears like so many hemorrhoids .
It gets itchy and needs to be gotten rid of .
Spending your money makes the itch go away , just like Prep-H .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apply to finger and then apply to your butt.Why?
Because all your money disappears like so many hemorrhoids.
It gets itchy and needs to be gotten rid of.
Spending your money makes the itch go away, just like Prep-H.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043390</id>
	<title>Re:No shit</title>
	<author>Carewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257847020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the best strategy for the shooter is to place the ball in the corner where the goalie can't reach it even if guesses the right side. The only problem with this strategy is that it increases the risk of missing the goal entirely, which not only losses the 50-50 chance but is also extremely embarrassing. So the optimal strategy is only valid for really good shooters.</p><p>And we are not even covering the options of feints, but game theory of feints gets silly. Is is feinting for real or is he feinting to make me think he is feinting, or is he feinting to make me think he is only feinting to make me think he is feinting? or...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the best strategy for the shooter is to place the ball in the corner where the goalie ca n't reach it even if guesses the right side .
The only problem with this strategy is that it increases the risk of missing the goal entirely , which not only losses the 50-50 chance but is also extremely embarrassing .
So the optimal strategy is only valid for really good shooters.And we are not even covering the options of feints , but game theory of feints gets silly .
Is is feinting for real or is he feinting to make me think he is feinting , or is he feinting to make me think he is only feinting to make me think he is feinting ?
or.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the best strategy for the shooter is to place the ball in the corner where the goalie can't reach it even if guesses the right side.
The only problem with this strategy is that it increases the risk of missing the goal entirely, which not only losses the 50-50 chance but is also extremely embarrassing.
So the optimal strategy is only valid for really good shooters.And we are not even covering the options of feints, but game theory of feints gets silly.
Is is feinting for real or is he feinting to make me think he is feinting, or is he feinting to make me think he is only feinting to make me think he is feinting?
or...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041332</id>
	<title>Re:Its easy!</title>
	<author>greenguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257778260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker, you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy</p></div><p>A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker , you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economyA strange game .
The only winning move is not to play .
How about a nice game of chess ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker, you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economyA strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.
How about a nice game of chess?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30062574</id>
	<title>Patches without rebooting, pls?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can computer scientists teach economists how to apply patches without rebooting the system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can computer scientists teach economists how to apply patches without rebooting the system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can computer scientists teach economists how to apply patches without rebooting the system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041616</id>
	<title>Re:Three person games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257780660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Each player in turn gets to choose which player to steal a $1.00 from and how much of it they will keep (they can keep at most half) and how much to give to the other opponent. Assume you do 50 rounds of this game (each player is visited 50 times).</p><p>Here is the problem: construct an optimal strategy for each player.</p></div><p>You have described a "race to collusion" game. Each player is in exactly the same position as the other two. Thus, take <i>any</i> possible equilibrium. You will have one player who is best off, one second best, and one worst, with the possibility that some number of players can be in an identical position as one another. In this configuration, it doesn't matter what the equilibrium looks like, the player in the worst position can offer to modify the status so that he is in the middle position and the player in the middle position is in the best position, which makes the player in the middle position better off and therefore brings about this change.</p><p>What this means is that the only stable outcome is the one where the best and second best off players are in the same position as one another, i.e. both get 50\% and they agree to split any losses incurred. In that situation the worst off player can try to bribe either of the other two, but both know that they are better off where they are than they would be in the situation where they are the worst off player, and both have agreed to abandon any collusion with the out-of-collusion player in exchange for the colluding partner's reciprocation. Since both are on equal footing neither can extract a greater share than the other and any attempt to do so would lead to the player in the middle position defecting to join the player in the worst position as above.</p><p>In other words, the first two players to join together are the winners.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each player in turn gets to choose which player to steal a $ 1.00 from and how much of it they will keep ( they can keep at most half ) and how much to give to the other opponent .
Assume you do 50 rounds of this game ( each player is visited 50 times ) .Here is the problem : construct an optimal strategy for each player.You have described a " race to collusion " game .
Each player is in exactly the same position as the other two .
Thus , take any possible equilibrium .
You will have one player who is best off , one second best , and one worst , with the possibility that some number of players can be in an identical position as one another .
In this configuration , it does n't matter what the equilibrium looks like , the player in the worst position can offer to modify the status so that he is in the middle position and the player in the middle position is in the best position , which makes the player in the middle position better off and therefore brings about this change.What this means is that the only stable outcome is the one where the best and second best off players are in the same position as one another , i.e .
both get 50 \ % and they agree to split any losses incurred .
In that situation the worst off player can try to bribe either of the other two , but both know that they are better off where they are than they would be in the situation where they are the worst off player , and both have agreed to abandon any collusion with the out-of-collusion player in exchange for the colluding partner 's reciprocation .
Since both are on equal footing neither can extract a greater share than the other and any attempt to do so would lead to the player in the middle position defecting to join the player in the worst position as above.In other words , the first two players to join together are the winners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each player in turn gets to choose which player to steal a $1.00 from and how much of it they will keep (they can keep at most half) and how much to give to the other opponent.
Assume you do 50 rounds of this game (each player is visited 50 times).Here is the problem: construct an optimal strategy for each player.You have described a "race to collusion" game.
Each player is in exactly the same position as the other two.
Thus, take any possible equilibrium.
You will have one player who is best off, one second best, and one worst, with the possibility that some number of players can be in an identical position as one another.
In this configuration, it doesn't matter what the equilibrium looks like, the player in the worst position can offer to modify the status so that he is in the middle position and the player in the middle position is in the best position, which makes the player in the middle position better off and therefore brings about this change.What this means is that the only stable outcome is the one where the best and second best off players are in the same position as one another, i.e.
both get 50\% and they agree to split any losses incurred.
In that situation the worst off player can try to bribe either of the other two, but both know that they are better off where they are than they would be in the situation where they are the worst off player, and both have agreed to abandon any collusion with the out-of-collusion player in exchange for the colluding partner's reciprocation.
Since both are on equal footing neither can extract a greater share than the other and any attempt to do so would lead to the player in the middle position defecting to join the player in the worst position as above.In other words, the first two players to join together are the winners.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040492</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is not an efficient algorithm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257772140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, I'm not surprised there is such school. My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of math, specifically, they don't seem to understand the exponential function, otherwise they would not speak of "growth" all the time.<br>I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.</p></div><p>The whole point of economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources, so I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentance. IMHO you don't have a good grasp of economics.</p><p>If by limited resources you mean capital, and if all production were dependent on it then eventually economies would reach a steady state because of diminishing returns. However, the world is far more complex than that - you need to account for technological progress and human capital (e.g. education). Human capital for example is scarce in that it has a cost (university fees is a good example) but does not experience (or we have not seen evidence of) diminishing returns i.e. humans can continue to learn and work towards progress without hitting a steady state. Similarly, if technology leads to more efficient use of current resources, or leads to new resources again a steady state can be avoided.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm not surprised there is such school .
My impression is , that economists in general do n't have a good grasp of math , specifically , they do n't seem to understand the exponential function , otherwise they would not speak of " growth " all the time.I 'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account , but at least they should get the boundary conditions right , and one of those is that our resources are limited.The whole point of economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources , so I 'm not sure what you mean by your last sentance .
IMHO you do n't have a good grasp of economics.If by limited resources you mean capital , and if all production were dependent on it then eventually economies would reach a steady state because of diminishing returns .
However , the world is far more complex than that - you need to account for technological progress and human capital ( e.g .
education ) . Human capital for example is scarce in that it has a cost ( university fees is a good example ) but does not experience ( or we have not seen evidence of ) diminishing returns i.e .
humans can continue to learn and work towards progress without hitting a steady state .
Similarly , if technology leads to more efficient use of current resources , or leads to new resources again a steady state can be avoided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm not surprised there is such school.
My impression is, that economists in general don't have a good grasp of math, specifically, they don't seem to understand the exponential function, otherwise they would not speak of "growth" all the time.I'm not saying one should not take human behavior into account, but at least they should get the boundary conditions right, and one of those is that our resources are limited.The whole point of economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources, so I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentance.
IMHO you don't have a good grasp of economics.If by limited resources you mean capital, and if all production were dependent on it then eventually economies would reach a steady state because of diminishing returns.
However, the world is far more complex than that - you need to account for technological progress and human capital (e.g.
education). Human capital for example is scarce in that it has a cost (university fees is a good example) but does not experience (or we have not seen evidence of) diminishing returns i.e.
humans can continue to learn and work towards progress without hitting a steady state.
Similarly, if technology leads to more efficient use of current resources, or leads to new resources again a steady state can be avoided.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039306</id>
	<title>Its easy!</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1257765780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker, you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy</p> </div><p>The general solution to poker is to end the game with everyone elses money to make yourself richer. Some people have already applied this strategy to the economy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker , you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy The general solution to poker is to end the game with everyone elses money to make yourself richer .
Some people have already applied this strategy to the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker, you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy The general solution to poker is to end the game with everyone elses money to make yourself richer.
Some people have already applied this strategy to the economy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30056684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30049184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30051262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30051190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30056590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2024229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040692
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30046152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30049184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30051262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039514
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041692
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040506
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040492
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039854
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040118
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041594
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039874
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30044960
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30051190
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047562
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042630
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30056684
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30042978
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30047068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30056590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30041778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2024229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30039458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30040796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2024229.30043994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
