PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
[Pen-l] Re: GMUonomics [was: behavioral (experimental) economics]
- To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [Pen-l] Re: GMUonomics [was: behavioral (experimental) economics]
- From: "Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:46:06 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=HlEYiUkvipOtBA8z3b3tay1rRIJEIPyRlh6scC+dW2w=; b=Ae22X8cOLnHTCcxpJglTyF1HwYUHE6My2xYAutq9oZdN0f0yW0MSsEZMs/hDSdTc27AZrv/7Z06Joxi9tQZe9F/EPHyjmbEJTnVdieVkZY+/DMp44w6ua18DjkOmv1lMfWIUfe1QA1BraZ7WXZB3YhGFX4kdrHpRigpN6xFMyls=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=YlY9c6ARyeTuBqNYdi3SzNW/cYdzuqKqrSnJcG9QuZmaedBfrw98FDrr2qLEi+P2079KRNSZwsJrSiK8A4GTVqX8ts6AzxhiP2geQVOQh5Tfcif6RXq7uZsqoTnGrIf0nfrirXZzmVwOMe5ltr1ya9EQYtF+Pq3zN7ZTNFfh4L4=
Les wrote:
> i haven't seen anyone yet locate your fixed points in actual existing
> processes.
Les,
Consider a much simpler example, from anybody's world: A can with some
liquid. Let the state of the system at $t$ be $x_t$. Now shake the
can. At $t+1$, after the shaking, the system is $x_{t+1}$. Fixed
point theorems say that there'll be at least one point along the
mapping from $x_t$ to $x_{t+1}$ that will be fixed.
Now, you say. But Julio, what do you mean a point in a physical
liquid? Points are dimensionless. Do you mean that a dimensionless
entity has an "objective" existence outside of our minds? And even if
a dimensionless object existed, what if the world is discontinuous at
its most elementary micro-cosmic level, don't theorems predicated on
continuity collapse then?
I'll say, okay Les, I concede: A perfectly dimensionless point can't
exist but in our minds. If the world is not continuous in any
meaningful sense at some level, then there may be a hole right about
where the hypothetical fixed point would be. Etc. But -- but, if the
point of mathematical analysis is *approximation* (Gerretsen & Rau),
and approximation is a *practical human endeavor*, then for certain
*practical* purposes (e.g. inspect the quality of the liquid in a can,
etc.), a molecule can be thought of as a point. They are small
enough. So, for at least one molecule $x_t=x_{t+1}$ will pin a fixed
point.
But Julio, for *other* conceivable practical purposes (something
involving processes at a subatomic level), molecules are very complex
things. Sure. Then let the molecule be a sub-system or element $x^i$
of $x$ and replicate the argument. The state of the molecule at $t$
is $x^i_t$. Shake the molecule every which way. At $t+1$, after the
shaking, there'll be a point defined by $x^i_t=x^i_{t+1}$. Fixed
point.
This is still the early 21st century, how much further would you want to go?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]