![]() | Mathematical economics has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reading the source on Popper, his complaints were that a complete mathematical (or philosophical) system could not make novel predictive statements without making assumptions so broad and forceful that the result could come from the assumptions itself. While this sounds the same as a rhetorical tautology (in the sense that we often see this when people make a defining statement and proceed to argue the truth value of the proposition from the defining statement), Popper clearly meant is as a philosophical constraint on theories.
My feelings for the why the link is proper stem from the History section on logical tautologies and the clear connection alluded by the (seven decades of economic methodology) sourcing. I may be wrong.
Protonk ( talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I don't have a phd in mathematical logic or otherwise formal logic (I actually don't have a phd in anything), but I'll try and make an argument nonetheless. Quotations are from Boland, L. A. (2006) Seven Decades of Economic Methodology. pp. 219-223 In: I. C. Jarvie, K. Milford, D.W. Miller Eds Karl Popper:A Centenary Assessment. London:Ashgate Publishing p. 219 unless otherwise noted. the full text of the article is available here.
Instead, the 1940s and 50s were the battle ground for the movement to make economics a mathematical science. A main criticism of mathematical economics was that mathematics could only provide tautologies – which were claimed to be statements or theorems that are true by virtue of their logical form rather than their empirical content. More correctly, a tautology is a statement which does not depend on the definition of its non-logical words but only on its logical words such as ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘is’ and ‘not’. Thus, a tautology is a statement which is true simply because one cannot conceive of a counter-example. For example, the statement ‘I am here or I am not here” is true regardless of who ‘I’ am or where ‘here’ is." "At the time of Hutchison’s [Here Hutchinson is an exponent of Popper's views] launch of testability-directed methodology, Paul Samuelson was beginning to write his Ph.D. thesis that promoted the mathematical basis for all economic theory. And Samuelson directly confronted the critics by saying that his version of mathematical economics could not be dismissed as a bunch of tautologies because he would require economic theorems to be testable and thereby conceivably false. For Samuelson, a testable theorem is ‘operationally meaningful’ by which he merely meant that it must be ‘refutable in principle’. To be refutable in principle, a theorem could not be a tautology. QED"
It is 100% possible that the confusion has arisen from my interpretation of this passage (and others), my communication of that interpretation on the page or my further confusion in attempting to explain it to you. If that is the case, I'm sorry. But as I see it this doesn't result in the proper link being to the current article on rhetorical tautologies. I notice that you are removing inappropriate internal links to logic articles. That is an important and valuable cleanup task. But I don't feel you are correct in this instance. At the very least (as you suggest above), a link to tautology_(rhetoric) is inappropriate. the tone and subject of the article don't match the intent of the source or the internal link (in my mind). A new article in logic (should I be correct about the link to rhetorical but incorrect about the link to logical tautology) might be appropriate, but such an article would be wholly out of my scope of competence. So, as I said, if the disagreement here is to the insufficient depth of knowledge I displayed about logic or the subject at hand, please accept my apologies. But as I see it, the link to tautology_(logic) is the proper reading of the source material. Protonk ( talk) 16:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk, I'm not your GAN reviewer, but I can help you get past the "well-written" criterion. Economics isn't my field, but I'm a fan of game theory and other applications of the field. Feel free to disagree; please put any responses directly under the bullet point that you're responding to. I don't generally cover images or endsections when I copyedit. I'm doing a little more than I usually do for a WP:GAN article because I could easily see this article heading to FAC in the future.
Mathematical_economics#History:
Mathematical_economics#Application:
Mathematical_economics#Criticism of mathematical economics
Mathematical_economics#Mathematical economics applications and the section after:
Okay that's it. Best of luck with your review, and I'll be happy to answer questions. I enjoyed learning more about the subject. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Some reponses to questions above:
Thanks for the help so far. I'll see what I can check out of the library. Protonk ( talk) 02:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Very nice work. I'm not good with advice on images, but it seems to me that a couple more images that should be easy to find might help nail the WP:GAN. You might illustrate your sentence "Much of classical economics can be presented in simple geometric terms or elementary mathematical notation" with a simple supply-demand curve, contrasted with some more intricate 3-D plot. If that seems too dry, most of the articles on notable economists have pictures you could borrow. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean about that. I'm going to try and flesh out the early 20th century history bit first and then I'll try to come up with a short blurb for each economist on the list (and prune as necessary). Protonk ( talk) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
On the advice of Jay Henry, I've checked out a few mathematical economics textbooks to get a feel for the basic structure of a course on the matter.
This is from:
I:Prolegomena 1. Cournot, Walras and Edgeworth II:The founding Years (1900-1949) 2. Pareto and General equlibrium 3. Classical General equilibrium 4. Wald and existence proofs 5. Early game theory 6. Early multi-sectoral growth 7. Dynamic modeling 8. Iring Fischer and Interest theory 9. Widening General Equilibrium Theory 10. Applied general equilibirum III: Extensions, Fitness and formalism (1950 on) 11. Walras ''cum'' Leontief 12. From classical to modern analysis 13. Linear programming and extensions 14. Consumer's analysis 15. Firm's analysis 16. General competitive equlibrium 17. Stability and more 18. Regular economics ... it continues for a while
I think this is a little helpful, insofar as it points to some good ways to break the article history, applications and examples down. Nicola's breakdown is by no means the only one but I picked his book specifically because it made an attempt at grounding the chapters in history. Perhaps a new layout could be:
* 1 History o 1.1 Marginalists and the roots of neoclassical economics o 1.2 General equilibrium and the interwar years o 1.3 Emergence of modern mathematical economics o 1.3.1 Econometrics * 2 Application o 2.1 Early Models of competition o 2.1.1 Perfect competition o 2.1.2 Monopoly o 2.1.3 Duopoly o 2.2 Models of equilibrium o 2.2.1 Walrassian equilibrium o 2.2.2 IS/LM o 2.3 Models of choice o 2.3.1 Game theory and oligopoly o 2.3.2 Public choice o 2.4 The theory of the firm * 3 Relationship to the discipline as a whole o 3.1 Mathematical economics as methodology o 3.2 Mathematical finance o 3.2 Views from inside and outside the professon (maybe, if I can find stuff) * 4 Criticism of mathematical economics * 5 Mathematical economists o 5.1 19th century o 5.2 20th century * 6 See also * 7 Notes * 8 External links
Thoughts?
* 1 History o 1.1 The calculus-based marginalist period (1838-1947) o 1.2 The set-theoretic/linear models period (1948-1960) o 1.3 The current period of integration (1961-1984)
A question has been raised about the distinction between mathematical economics and econometrics in this article. I originally did not distinguish between the two but started to due to some sources making the distinction. What comes immediately to mind is the Stigler article (
Stigler, George J. (April, 1995).
"The Journals of Economics".
The Journal of Political Economy. 103 (2). The University of Chicago Press: 339.
ISSN
0022-3808. Retrieved 2008-08-17. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)). He notes a distinction between
Econometrica and other mathematical economics journals and relates some stories about Keynes and other journal editors refusing to publish material that would today be considered econometrics in the AER and QJE. I'll see which other sources cited here distinguish between econometrics and mathematical economics.
Protonk (
talk) 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've withdrawn the GAN as I've discovered that the scope of the article doesn't come close to covering the scope of the subject. I'll expand it (as best I can) in the next week or so to look like the structure seen above. Any help is much appreciated. Also, anyone that can get Economic Methodology by Dow would be a help, as my interlibrary request for it got denied. Don't they KNOW I need to edit wikipedia?! Protonk ( talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few general sources that might be helpful in addition to those already in the article.
For a classic discussion: F.Y. Edgeworth (2008), "mathematical methods in political economy," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, earlier (with "method" in the title) at (1987) The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics , v. 3, pp. 404-05, and (1987) Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy
For later treatment: Gerard Debreu (2008), "mathematical economics," (Abstract.) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition.
The JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories list some mathematical methods as applied to non-game-theory applications under JEL: C6. Game theory has its own subbategories. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I will review the article. Give me a few hours to read it over a few times. -- Patrick ( talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
After reading this a few times, I have to say this is a very good article. So far I only have a few comments. More, I think, are coming. I have not reviewed the sources yet.
Cheers. -- Patrick ( talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Protonk and Patrick, I'll be happy to give this a quick FAC-level copyedit if you like; let me know. I copyedited this article once before. The first think I see is that the lead is just a tiny bit too short per LEAD. I've had bad luck with trying to guess which facts in an article were most important to the editor; if you guys want to suggest what's important, I'll think about how to add it. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Great article. I think this article should be put forward soon for FA status. Well done. -- Patrick ( talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in heading to A-class or FAC with this one, let me know, I'd love to help. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the following paragraph fail to relate to the topic:
Around the end of the 19th century, the effort to place mathematics on secure logical foundations reached its most ambitious heights with the publication of Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead. In 1918, David Hilbert continued the call for a complete axiomatic system in mathematics.[9]. Although the ultimate goal of a complete, consistent and self-contained mathematical system was ultimately shown by Godel to be unachievable, economists continue to regard mathematical rigor as a desirable objective.
I think it should be removed 70.61.48.113 ( talk) 19:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll make a few comments:
Karl Marx and Mathematical Economics, Leon Smolinski, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1973), pp. 1189-1204.
Any biography of
Leonid Kantorovich discusses the problems of using mathematics, in the U.S.S.R. which was most intense during the time of Stalin; he has an autobiographical essay "My Journey in Science" which recounts him being denounced and compared to "the fascist Pareto" during the most repressive years.
Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I tentatively added "Sir" to both R.G.D. Allen and John Hicks's names in the list of MEs to be consistent with its use for Mirrlees. (Their WP articles show them as having been knighted, although Hicks's article doesn't give his specific honor/order. Their articles also refer to them as "Sir" in the lead sentence.)
I have no strong feelings one way or the other about whether to use of honorifics and titles for British (and possibly other) economists, e.g., Lord J.M. Keynes (1st Baron Tilton). Clearly, though, usage should be consistent throughout the article, especially in such a list. -- Jackftwist ( talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The "criticism" of Hayek can stay (although one wonders whether engineers have to suffer through such criticism of the role of calculus in their practices).
Most of the noted criticisms of mathematical economics are not criticisms of mathematical economics per se. They are rather criticisms of economics, as neglecting empirical theory construction and testing. Those criticisms should be moved off.
Could somebody find better criticisms of economics?
For example, Martin Shubik wrote an entertaining criticism of microeconomics and the Oskar Morgenstern wrote a much sharper critique of actually existing economics in the 1970s. There was an American Economic Association blue-ribbon commission (c. 1993)that complained that grad programs rivaled McDonald's in their standardization, and rivaled metaphysical academies in their divorce from practice. Such criticisms would better serve the public than Keynes's snobbery and Heilbroner's dotage.
Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There is not citation saying that this is an important part of math econ. There is not citation of a competent good textbook in math econ with a chapter on agent based econ.
It's all very interesting, but computer experiments are as old as Schelling and Rapaport, and were old hat in the 1970s. At least Axelrod's updating of Rapapport had a theoretical point, correcting Mancur Olson et al on cooperation. (But see Smale for a math approach.)
Why not move the section to computational economics?
This is not the only article to feature agency/based econ, or what is sometimes called simulations by honest people, but this seems to be the least excusable. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Dr. Krawczyk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
I am not certain whether ‘mathematical economics’ should have a separate entry in Wikipedia. The way I see it, this article provides many links to mathematical economics’ topics, which exist independently in Wikipedia. Also, there exist independent articles in Wikipedia which cover what this article purports to cover, e.g., “Walrasian auction”, “Cournot competition”, Krush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions, and more.
Here are my more detailed comments:
First para …
- “Calculus, difference and differential […] and other computational methods”
Calculus, difference and differential equations etc are not computational methods.
- “.. is its allowing formulation”
Grammar?
- “optimization problems as to goal equilibrium …”
Grammar?
- “Formal economic modeling began in the 19th century ..”
I would say “early 19th” to allow for Cournot’s works.
History … “… in (?) German universities…” At ?
You could mention that ‘statistics’ and ‘state’ have the same root.
- “… if there were n markets and n-1 markets cleared [..] that the nth market would clear…”
…than the nth market
- Nonlinear programming …
While Krush is mention in a link, he is missing from the article.
Finally, I would include in the list of the 20th century mathematical economists J. B. Rosen for his works on concave games and coupled constraint equilibrium (see e.g. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1911749?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
and K. L. Judd /info/en/?search=Kenneth_Judd for his works on taxation and multiple contribution to computational economics.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Krawczyk has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 11:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Mathematical economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fcs.edu.uy/multi/phes/mirowski_math_econ_JEP.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Como autorevisor caso tu interesses em traduzir e botar para EAB seria grato por isso. att 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:8DE1:61A8:EFA6:A1C2 ( talk) 00:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I have a background in math and not economics. The example in this article has cool math, but the function choices are made up, the constant choices are made up, and its conclusion is in complete disagreement with the empirical reality of corporate tax cuts and wage growth in the United States over the last 50 years. Does no one see a problem with this? Is the purpose of Wikipedia to provide truthful knowledge to the public, or to provide justification for crap policies to benefit corporations? Dudewaldo4 ( talk) 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Mathematical economics has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reading the source on Popper, his complaints were that a complete mathematical (or philosophical) system could not make novel predictive statements without making assumptions so broad and forceful that the result could come from the assumptions itself. While this sounds the same as a rhetorical tautology (in the sense that we often see this when people make a defining statement and proceed to argue the truth value of the proposition from the defining statement), Popper clearly meant is as a philosophical constraint on theories.
My feelings for the why the link is proper stem from the History section on logical tautologies and the clear connection alluded by the (seven decades of economic methodology) sourcing. I may be wrong.
Protonk ( talk) 21:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I don't have a phd in mathematical logic or otherwise formal logic (I actually don't have a phd in anything), but I'll try and make an argument nonetheless. Quotations are from Boland, L. A. (2006) Seven Decades of Economic Methodology. pp. 219-223 In: I. C. Jarvie, K. Milford, D.W. Miller Eds Karl Popper:A Centenary Assessment. London:Ashgate Publishing p. 219 unless otherwise noted. the full text of the article is available here.
Instead, the 1940s and 50s were the battle ground for the movement to make economics a mathematical science. A main criticism of mathematical economics was that mathematics could only provide tautologies – which were claimed to be statements or theorems that are true by virtue of their logical form rather than their empirical content. More correctly, a tautology is a statement which does not depend on the definition of its non-logical words but only on its logical words such as ‘and’, ‘or’, ‘is’ and ‘not’. Thus, a tautology is a statement which is true simply because one cannot conceive of a counter-example. For example, the statement ‘I am here or I am not here” is true regardless of who ‘I’ am or where ‘here’ is." "At the time of Hutchison’s [Here Hutchinson is an exponent of Popper's views] launch of testability-directed methodology, Paul Samuelson was beginning to write his Ph.D. thesis that promoted the mathematical basis for all economic theory. And Samuelson directly confronted the critics by saying that his version of mathematical economics could not be dismissed as a bunch of tautologies because he would require economic theorems to be testable and thereby conceivably false. For Samuelson, a testable theorem is ‘operationally meaningful’ by which he merely meant that it must be ‘refutable in principle’. To be refutable in principle, a theorem could not be a tautology. QED"
It is 100% possible that the confusion has arisen from my interpretation of this passage (and others), my communication of that interpretation on the page or my further confusion in attempting to explain it to you. If that is the case, I'm sorry. But as I see it this doesn't result in the proper link being to the current article on rhetorical tautologies. I notice that you are removing inappropriate internal links to logic articles. That is an important and valuable cleanup task. But I don't feel you are correct in this instance. At the very least (as you suggest above), a link to tautology_(rhetoric) is inappropriate. the tone and subject of the article don't match the intent of the source or the internal link (in my mind). A new article in logic (should I be correct about the link to rhetorical but incorrect about the link to logical tautology) might be appropriate, but such an article would be wholly out of my scope of competence. So, as I said, if the disagreement here is to the insufficient depth of knowledge I displayed about logic or the subject at hand, please accept my apologies. But as I see it, the link to tautology_(logic) is the proper reading of the source material. Protonk ( talk) 16:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Protonk, I'm not your GAN reviewer, but I can help you get past the "well-written" criterion. Economics isn't my field, but I'm a fan of game theory and other applications of the field. Feel free to disagree; please put any responses directly under the bullet point that you're responding to. I don't generally cover images or endsections when I copyedit. I'm doing a little more than I usually do for a WP:GAN article because I could easily see this article heading to FAC in the future.
Mathematical_economics#History:
Mathematical_economics#Application:
Mathematical_economics#Criticism of mathematical economics
Mathematical_economics#Mathematical economics applications and the section after:
Okay that's it. Best of luck with your review, and I'll be happy to answer questions. I enjoyed learning more about the subject. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Some reponses to questions above:
Thanks for the help so far. I'll see what I can check out of the library. Protonk ( talk) 02:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Very nice work. I'm not good with advice on images, but it seems to me that a couple more images that should be easy to find might help nail the WP:GAN. You might illustrate your sentence "Much of classical economics can be presented in simple geometric terms or elementary mathematical notation" with a simple supply-demand curve, contrasted with some more intricate 3-D plot. If that seems too dry, most of the articles on notable economists have pictures you could borrow. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean about that. I'm going to try and flesh out the early 20th century history bit first and then I'll try to come up with a short blurb for each economist on the list (and prune as necessary). Protonk ( talk) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
On the advice of Jay Henry, I've checked out a few mathematical economics textbooks to get a feel for the basic structure of a course on the matter.
This is from:
I:Prolegomena 1. Cournot, Walras and Edgeworth II:The founding Years (1900-1949) 2. Pareto and General equlibrium 3. Classical General equilibrium 4. Wald and existence proofs 5. Early game theory 6. Early multi-sectoral growth 7. Dynamic modeling 8. Iring Fischer and Interest theory 9. Widening General Equilibrium Theory 10. Applied general equilibirum III: Extensions, Fitness and formalism (1950 on) 11. Walras ''cum'' Leontief 12. From classical to modern analysis 13. Linear programming and extensions 14. Consumer's analysis 15. Firm's analysis 16. General competitive equlibrium 17. Stability and more 18. Regular economics ... it continues for a while
I think this is a little helpful, insofar as it points to some good ways to break the article history, applications and examples down. Nicola's breakdown is by no means the only one but I picked his book specifically because it made an attempt at grounding the chapters in history. Perhaps a new layout could be:
* 1 History o 1.1 Marginalists and the roots of neoclassical economics o 1.2 General equilibrium and the interwar years o 1.3 Emergence of modern mathematical economics o 1.3.1 Econometrics * 2 Application o 2.1 Early Models of competition o 2.1.1 Perfect competition o 2.1.2 Monopoly o 2.1.3 Duopoly o 2.2 Models of equilibrium o 2.2.1 Walrassian equilibrium o 2.2.2 IS/LM o 2.3 Models of choice o 2.3.1 Game theory and oligopoly o 2.3.2 Public choice o 2.4 The theory of the firm * 3 Relationship to the discipline as a whole o 3.1 Mathematical economics as methodology o 3.2 Mathematical finance o 3.2 Views from inside and outside the professon (maybe, if I can find stuff) * 4 Criticism of mathematical economics * 5 Mathematical economists o 5.1 19th century o 5.2 20th century * 6 See also * 7 Notes * 8 External links
Thoughts?
* 1 History o 1.1 The calculus-based marginalist period (1838-1947) o 1.2 The set-theoretic/linear models period (1948-1960) o 1.3 The current period of integration (1961-1984)
A question has been raised about the distinction between mathematical economics and econometrics in this article. I originally did not distinguish between the two but started to due to some sources making the distinction. What comes immediately to mind is the Stigler article (
Stigler, George J. (April, 1995).
"The Journals of Economics".
The Journal of Political Economy. 103 (2). The University of Chicago Press: 339.
ISSN
0022-3808. Retrieved 2008-08-17. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)). He notes a distinction between
Econometrica and other mathematical economics journals and relates some stories about Keynes and other journal editors refusing to publish material that would today be considered econometrics in the AER and QJE. I'll see which other sources cited here distinguish between econometrics and mathematical economics.
Protonk (
talk) 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I've withdrawn the GAN as I've discovered that the scope of the article doesn't come close to covering the scope of the subject. I'll expand it (as best I can) in the next week or so to look like the structure seen above. Any help is much appreciated. Also, anyone that can get Economic Methodology by Dow would be a help, as my interlibrary request for it got denied. Don't they KNOW I need to edit wikipedia?! Protonk ( talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few general sources that might be helpful in addition to those already in the article.
For a classic discussion: F.Y. Edgeworth (2008), "mathematical methods in political economy," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, earlier (with "method" in the title) at (1987) The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics , v. 3, pp. 404-05, and (1987) Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy
For later treatment: Gerard Debreu (2008), "mathematical economics," (Abstract.) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition.
The JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories list some mathematical methods as applied to non-game-theory applications under JEL: C6. Game theory has its own subbategories. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I will review the article. Give me a few hours to read it over a few times. -- Patrick ( talk) 16:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
After reading this a few times, I have to say this is a very good article. So far I only have a few comments. More, I think, are coming. I have not reviewed the sources yet.
Cheers. -- Patrick ( talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Protonk and Patrick, I'll be happy to give this a quick FAC-level copyedit if you like; let me know. I copyedited this article once before. The first think I see is that the lead is just a tiny bit too short per LEAD. I've had bad luck with trying to guess which facts in an article were most important to the editor; if you guys want to suggest what's important, I'll think about how to add it. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 21:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Great article. I think this article should be put forward soon for FA status. Well done. -- Patrick ( talk) 18:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in heading to A-class or FAC with this one, let me know, I'd love to help. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does the following paragraph fail to relate to the topic:
Around the end of the 19th century, the effort to place mathematics on secure logical foundations reached its most ambitious heights with the publication of Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead. In 1918, David Hilbert continued the call for a complete axiomatic system in mathematics.[9]. Although the ultimate goal of a complete, consistent and self-contained mathematical system was ultimately shown by Godel to be unachievable, economists continue to regard mathematical rigor as a desirable objective.
I think it should be removed 70.61.48.113 ( talk) 19:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll make a few comments:
Karl Marx and Mathematical Economics, Leon Smolinski, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1973), pp. 1189-1204.
Any biography of
Leonid Kantorovich discusses the problems of using mathematics, in the U.S.S.R. which was most intense during the time of Stalin; he has an autobiographical essay "My Journey in Science" which recounts him being denounced and compared to "the fascist Pareto" during the most repressive years.
Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I tentatively added "Sir" to both R.G.D. Allen and John Hicks's names in the list of MEs to be consistent with its use for Mirrlees. (Their WP articles show them as having been knighted, although Hicks's article doesn't give his specific honor/order. Their articles also refer to them as "Sir" in the lead sentence.)
I have no strong feelings one way or the other about whether to use of honorifics and titles for British (and possibly other) economists, e.g., Lord J.M. Keynes (1st Baron Tilton). Clearly, though, usage should be consistent throughout the article, especially in such a list. -- Jackftwist ( talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The "criticism" of Hayek can stay (although one wonders whether engineers have to suffer through such criticism of the role of calculus in their practices).
Most of the noted criticisms of mathematical economics are not criticisms of mathematical economics per se. They are rather criticisms of economics, as neglecting empirical theory construction and testing. Those criticisms should be moved off.
Could somebody find better criticisms of economics?
For example, Martin Shubik wrote an entertaining criticism of microeconomics and the Oskar Morgenstern wrote a much sharper critique of actually existing economics in the 1970s. There was an American Economic Association blue-ribbon commission (c. 1993)that complained that grad programs rivaled McDonald's in their standardization, and rivaled metaphysical academies in their divorce from practice. Such criticisms would better serve the public than Keynes's snobbery and Heilbroner's dotage.
Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There is not citation saying that this is an important part of math econ. There is not citation of a competent good textbook in math econ with a chapter on agent based econ.
It's all very interesting, but computer experiments are as old as Schelling and Rapaport, and were old hat in the 1970s. At least Axelrod's updating of Rapapport had a theoretical point, correcting Mancur Olson et al on cooperation. (But see Smale for a math approach.)
Why not move the section to computational economics?
This is not the only article to feature agency/based econ, or what is sometimes called simulations by honest people, but this seems to be the least excusable. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 20:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Dr. Krawczyk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
I am not certain whether ‘mathematical economics’ should have a separate entry in Wikipedia. The way I see it, this article provides many links to mathematical economics’ topics, which exist independently in Wikipedia. Also, there exist independent articles in Wikipedia which cover what this article purports to cover, e.g., “Walrasian auction”, “Cournot competition”, Krush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions, and more.
Here are my more detailed comments:
First para …
- “Calculus, difference and differential […] and other computational methods”
Calculus, difference and differential equations etc are not computational methods.
- “.. is its allowing formulation”
Grammar?
- “optimization problems as to goal equilibrium …”
Grammar?
- “Formal economic modeling began in the 19th century ..”
I would say “early 19th” to allow for Cournot’s works.
History … “… in (?) German universities…” At ?
You could mention that ‘statistics’ and ‘state’ have the same root.
- “… if there were n markets and n-1 markets cleared [..] that the nth market would clear…”
…than the nth market
- Nonlinear programming …
While Krush is mention in a link, he is missing from the article.
Finally, I would include in the list of the 20th century mathematical economists J. B. Rosen for his works on concave games and coupled constraint equilibrium (see e.g. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1911749?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
and K. L. Judd /info/en/?search=Kenneth_Judd for his works on taxation and multiple contribution to computational economics.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Krawczyk has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 11:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Mathematical economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fcs.edu.uy/multi/phes/mirowski_math_econ_JEP.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Como autorevisor caso tu interesses em traduzir e botar para EAB seria grato por isso. att 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:8DE1:61A8:EFA6:A1C2 ( talk) 00:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I have a background in math and not economics. The example in this article has cool math, but the function choices are made up, the constant choices are made up, and its conclusion is in complete disagreement with the empirical reality of corporate tax cuts and wage growth in the United States over the last 50 years. Does no one see a problem with this? Is the purpose of Wikipedia to provide truthful knowledge to the public, or to provide justification for crap policies to benefit corporations? Dudewaldo4 ( talk) 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)