Re: CAMREC: GAs and NNs are just as bad as optimisation!

From: the Campaign for Real Economics (camrec@mmu.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 03 1999 - 11:48:52 GMT


Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 11:48:52 +0000
Message-Id: <199903031148.LAA00505@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk>
To: bogus
From: camrec@mmu.ac.uk (the Campaign for Real Economics)
Subject: Re: CAMREC: GAs and NNs are just as bad as optimisation!
In-Reply-To: <CAMREC: GAs and NNs are just as bad as optimisation!>


Message-Id: <199903031148.LAA00505@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk>
To: CAMREC list members <camrec@mmu.ac.uk>
From: the Campaign for Real Economics <camrec@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 11:48:52 +0000
Subject: Re: CAMREC: GAs and NNs are just as bad as optimisation!

I think we agree on most points.

Yes, the introduction of NNs and GAs do represent a widening of the
modelling tools. If they are used in a way that can be justified by
reference to observed processes in a descriptive ("white-box") way,
without gross assumptions and irrelevance then fine.

There is nothing special about NNS and GAs, of course. Hopefully a
whole range of formal and computational languages and tools will be
introduced. Almost all the papers with NNs and GAs that I have
read/heard are in every way as bad as papers using constrained
optimisation etc.

> By the way, is the mark-up prise-fixing rule of any interest for your
> research about
> ways of fixation of prises in real markets?
> Are you interested to have a copy of the article extracted from the thesis?

I am interested in any descriptive/ancedotal accounts of deciding prices
in real stock markets. If the article is about such, then please send
it to me.

Thanks.

Regards.

--------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds,
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Bldg.,
Aytoun St., Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/~bruce



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 06 2000 - 17:00:29 GMT