tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post8626108942688519096..comments2024-03-18T15:55:36.742+00:00Comments on Poetry as Socio-proctology: Alan Kirman & the Impossibility of a Paretian Illiberalwindwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-41555237908136876452014-11-12T16:33:37.497+00:002014-11-12T16:33:37.497+00:00Or, alternatively, just carry on critiquing me her...Or, alternatively, just carry on critiquing me here. I promise to deal with all points methodically and curb the 'poetic' stuff. <br />Anyway, great to hear from you.windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-51678239628999762952014-11-12T16:30:47.065+00:002014-11-12T16:30:47.065+00:00Oh and btw, of course Muth is relevant. Social Cho...Oh and btw, of course Muth is relevant. Social Choice is a Co-ordination game. Think about it- Prude doesn't have a preference about who reads what, he has a preference about Rude's preferences and vice versa for the excellent reason that there is a big pay-off for a co-operative solution to a co-ordiantion (or dis-coordination) game which is too Pareto efficient.<br />Look, write to me separately or Skype and I'll go through things step by step.<br />God bless in any case.<br />Respect.windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-16399570263995724622014-11-12T16:21:42.887+00:002014-11-12T16:21:42.887+00:00Ha ha- made you look.
No, but seriously, I agree w...Ha ha- made you look.<br />No, but seriously, I agree with everything you say about me- and btw I would have considered it my great good fortune, if not then then now, if I'd gone to 'Godhulia Gornmint College provided I'd had you as my lecturer. Instead, at the LSE, in 1979, I attended Sen's lectures on Social Choice and, a lasting testimony to my stupidity, thought he was as smart as he was arrogant. I was wrong.<br />You mention Lob's theorem and say Sen and everybody else was aware of its implications. This is not true. You say General Eqbm and Welfare Econ ain't univocal. This is silly and thoughtless because you go on to mention Samuelson's turnpikes. Fuck is wrong with you? Did you forget that I have access to Wikipedia? How about you use it once in a while yourself? Scratch that. Why not just use your brains?<br />Sen wrote before Sonnenschiem Debreu Mantel or Kirman & Koch etc. He didn't get- few did, ask Binmore- Arrow's Tarskian training and why brute Set Theory couldn't (precisely coz of stuff like Acceptation and Ackermann Reflection) rush into a topos where the angel of Relation Algebra feared to tread. Think for a second about Kripke's workaround for Tarski. What does it mean for Lob's 'modal fixed points'? Are you telling me Sen understood everything we now know about stuff like this back in 1970?<br />Are you mad or just stupid?<br />I actually look stuff up on the internet. I write poetry and poetry is about using your brain.<br />I emailed this to you because I'm a friendly guy. Suhrit praapti, is the condition for Yoga- Grothendieck or Patanjali.<br />Sen is a shithead. I'm stupid. Being stupid is poetic. Being a shithead is just such a fucking waste of a brain.<br />Far from disappointing me, you've made my day. Why? Because you've been honest with me. <br />Chimps fling their faeces at each other. That's how our species got our start. Starting with shit- Scatology as you learnedly term it- we proceeded to Sinn and Sin- Fregean Orbis Tertius Acceptation and its concomitant Third World of Strategic, or Spiritual, Dessication- but, dear fellow, Godhulia aint flinging faeces- it's the 'cow dust hour' when, Kazantzakis tells us, and old bard plucks his own throat's jews harp to renew once again Time's indefeasible Tiger melody.<br />We aint getting younger. Jus' sayin'.windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-16467212954422957322014-11-12T15:34:39.802+00:002014-11-12T15:34:39.802+00:00This is sheer stupidity. I'm amazed you actual...This is sheer stupidity. I'm amazed you actually emailed me this. What were you expecting? A pat on the back?<br />You keep harping on the fact that you went to the LSE. I have had first year students- not from the LSE but what you are pleased to refer to as my 'Godhulia Gornmnt College'- who have written more cogently on this topic. <br />Have you no shame?<br />I don't want to waste words on you so I will keep this brief- kindly look up terms you don't understand on Wikipedia. After all, all your vaunted Mathematical knowledge consists only of randomly cut and pasting stuff from there so you are already familiar with the relevant url.<br />1) Kirman is in General Equilibrium theory. Sen isn't. There is no connection between the two.<br />2) The generalised Lob's theorem explains why no proofs, one way or other, arise within any formalization of Social Choice theory. What you call impredicativity implies undecidability. But every one, Sen included, knew this. His result captures something about dynamics which was relevant at a time when Samuelson type 'turnpike theorems' had salience. His result had the heuristic effect of alerting researchers that 'single peakedness' couldn't restore legitimacy to 'turnpike' type thinking. Nor, before you start, can Muth Rationality. Think about it.<br />3) You use the word 'Acceptation' and grandly speak of 'Ackermann's Reflection Principle'. Why? What great insight into the foundations of Mathematics do you possess which is denied lesser mortals? <br /><br />Why did you email this to me? Are you a masochist? Do you really think that a mere 'Academic' like me can attain the sublime heights of scatological abuse which you, the 'Poet of Socioproctology', have dedicated your life to?<br />I am sorry to disappoint you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com