![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I'll break up the comments, to lessen the head-aches with edit-conflicts in the future. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk)
I think the article is too inaccessible for a general reader. I don't think it needs to be. But it is. At a minimum, would work on the lead so that it is more helpful to a general reader. So he can get more feel for the topic even if he is not going to slog through the meat of the article (or really all the other articles he has to read to understand this one).
-I like the circle and disk thing, that was very clear.
-Wonder about having so many equations in the lead. Is there some what to trim how many there are? Think of the lead as a version that should be helpful to even the non math grad students.
-Don't specific the "Euclidan" (blue-linked) distance in the lead. If you feel the need, specify that in the text, but for the lead, Euclidian distance is exactly normal distance anyhow.
-not sure the answer, but presenting intervals in brackets and then sets in braces, is a little tricky for the average reader. It took me a bit before I noticed what you were doing. Remember he is grappling with new material, so notation makes it that much tougher. And braces and brackets are similar looking This is one reason why the graphical circle and disk are nice. Perhaps you could make the point by using a number line or some such, to show endpoints versus segments.
-Minkowski explanation was good and helpful.
-I have a hard time in the lead keeping track of the lemma versus the theorem (both in terms of what is what in math, and also what was published when). Also a bit confusing that the title is one of them, but the discussions moves to the other rather quickly. And just the structure of why we talk about one versus the other and when.
-lead image, caption. Do we have the use the "cover" term in the lead? I guess it is some exact term for congruency or such, but I worry that it's a bit like "Euclidean distance". Again if we can be simpler in the lead, we can always still have the rigor in the main article.
-Lyapunov thing: Not 100% clear the value of saying that SF is related to it, in lead. Seems like we are just saying one strange concept is related to some other, strange and bluelinked concept (And by the way, when I go to that blue link, it doesn't help me know what Lyapunov is about, is very skimpy.) Did Lyapunov come before or after? Are they parallel discoveries under different concepts (as for instance some aspects of options theory, really are the same thing as insurance?)
-Has this thereom helped anyone practically (it's OK if no, just asking). I mean have people made factories run faster, built bombs, decoded ciphers, learned genetics, etc. from it? Can we push for some tangible explanation of the economic or practical impact of the theorom?
-don't bother wikilinking statistics.
-Image caption: what does sum of two original sets and two convex hulls mean? You mean all 4 added together?
-Same image lower down: do we really need to show four sets or would two work to show the concept? Just trying to make it that much easier to grasp. I don't understand what the plus signs are doing. How are the four left sets nonconvex? Are they individually non convex? When they are just line segments?
-I would be careful about using the term "contain" wrt to the line segment on the inside of a circle. I get what you mean about the points on the interior not being a part of the set of points in the circumference. Just when you look at a segment, it's contained in the sense that it's inside the boundary. Just not contained in the set. Not sure how to fix this, but just be aware of how this throws people.
-I actually kinda know what an indiffernce curve is, but I struggled with the discussion here in article. Is it really necessary to talk about it in terms of a basket of goods (guns butter, blabla) versus a simple example using currency? Also "vector"? I'm sure that's math econd talk and thinking of things that way helps. But I learned econ without having to think of it s a "vector", but just some curve (functional relationship).
-what are the axes of the curve with the Pareto front thing zooming around? and what is with the tangents to the curve and the perpindicular to the tangent zooming around?
-"Taking the convex hull of non-convex consumer preferences had been discussed earlier by Wold." So? So what?
-It makes me very happy to see the crossed linear supply and demand curves. Happy to see something I know. that;s not so "hard". But connection to the article?
-Maybe if you can more explicitly have a para saying who came up with what, when in what paper (Shapley, Folkman and Starr), that would be good. I mean just reporting who got academic credit even. It just seems confusing when mixed with actually elaboration on the concepts themselves. -Is the whole shebang basically telling me that if we have a lot of zookeepers, we can effectively think of half a lion and half an eagle as the euqivlaent of a single lion or single eagle (like it all comes out in the wash with a lot of actors?)
-Was there like a big edifice waiting for Starr and SF to prove their theorems? I mean like there are parts of math that rely on Reimann hypothesis being true and if it's ever disproven they will come crumbling down (or the converse will be confirmed as that is sole uncertainty they rely on)?
-How much of a big deal was it (is it) that SF and S have this theorem/lemma? Is it like Andrew Wild Fermat's Last Theorem famous?
-How hard was it for them to prove this stuff (like how many equations, how long a paper, how many different aspects of math brought in)?
-"which we define" Who's we?
-closure of a set. I think I got the beginning of this discussion but kinda lost track of the point as it finished.
-I don't know what a summand is or what dimension is? But can these terms be avoided in the lead? Perhaps used in the body for rigor? IOW can the key concept be explained without getting into them, at first?
Sorry, that's the best I can do, at present. Good luck with it. If you want to leave it an article for math-econ grad students, won't bug me. Just giving you my reaction as I try to read it. TCO ( talk) 01:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna butt-in again. Here:
-It makes me very happy to see the crossed linear supply and demand curves. Happy to see something I know. that;s not so "hard". But connection to the article? (TCO)
To understand Starr's economics, one must know that supply and demand are functions of prices, and that the problem is to establish the existence (etc.) of an equilibrium price vector---with good properties (efficiency) for convex sets. (KW)
Since Starr's contribution was in relation to general equilibrium wouldn't an Edgeworth box (with a price tangent line/separating hyperplane) be more appropriate than a single market supply/demand diagram? The animated graphic's pretty sweet though. Volunteer Marek 10:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
-Is the whole shebang basically telling me that if we have a lot of zookeepers, we can effectively think of half a lion and half an eagle as the euqivlaent of a single lion or single eagle (like it all comes out in the wash with a lot of actors?)
It sort of means that if we have a lot of zoo keepers then there will be prices (a price for lions and eagles) at which every zookeeper chooses his optimal combination of lions and eagles and at which the total supply of eagles "almost" equals the total demand for eagles and same for lions. The lemma also tells you what this "almost" means ("almost" could be "exactly" in special cases) (I think). Volunteer Marek 10:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In which case you could say the sum of the two hulls, instead of sum of the two hulls and two sets? TCO ( talk) 20:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The right pane displays the sum of the four sets, which consists of 16=2(raised to the 4th) red dots, all the possible sums of the points in the sets. (Sorry, I have to run.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I know it's your peice de resistance. But I still have to peck at it.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I'll break up the comments, to lessen the head-aches with edit-conflicts in the future. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk)
I think the article is too inaccessible for a general reader. I don't think it needs to be. But it is. At a minimum, would work on the lead so that it is more helpful to a general reader. So he can get more feel for the topic even if he is not going to slog through the meat of the article (or really all the other articles he has to read to understand this one).
-I like the circle and disk thing, that was very clear.
-Wonder about having so many equations in the lead. Is there some what to trim how many there are? Think of the lead as a version that should be helpful to even the non math grad students.
-Don't specific the "Euclidan" (blue-linked) distance in the lead. If you feel the need, specify that in the text, but for the lead, Euclidian distance is exactly normal distance anyhow.
-not sure the answer, but presenting intervals in brackets and then sets in braces, is a little tricky for the average reader. It took me a bit before I noticed what you were doing. Remember he is grappling with new material, so notation makes it that much tougher. And braces and brackets are similar looking This is one reason why the graphical circle and disk are nice. Perhaps you could make the point by using a number line or some such, to show endpoints versus segments.
-Minkowski explanation was good and helpful.
-I have a hard time in the lead keeping track of the lemma versus the theorem (both in terms of what is what in math, and also what was published when). Also a bit confusing that the title is one of them, but the discussions moves to the other rather quickly. And just the structure of why we talk about one versus the other and when.
-lead image, caption. Do we have the use the "cover" term in the lead? I guess it is some exact term for congruency or such, but I worry that it's a bit like "Euclidean distance". Again if we can be simpler in the lead, we can always still have the rigor in the main article.
-Lyapunov thing: Not 100% clear the value of saying that SF is related to it, in lead. Seems like we are just saying one strange concept is related to some other, strange and bluelinked concept (And by the way, when I go to that blue link, it doesn't help me know what Lyapunov is about, is very skimpy.) Did Lyapunov come before or after? Are they parallel discoveries under different concepts (as for instance some aspects of options theory, really are the same thing as insurance?)
-Has this thereom helped anyone practically (it's OK if no, just asking). I mean have people made factories run faster, built bombs, decoded ciphers, learned genetics, etc. from it? Can we push for some tangible explanation of the economic or practical impact of the theorom?
-don't bother wikilinking statistics.
-Image caption: what does sum of two original sets and two convex hulls mean? You mean all 4 added together?
-Same image lower down: do we really need to show four sets or would two work to show the concept? Just trying to make it that much easier to grasp. I don't understand what the plus signs are doing. How are the four left sets nonconvex? Are they individually non convex? When they are just line segments?
-I would be careful about using the term "contain" wrt to the line segment on the inside of a circle. I get what you mean about the points on the interior not being a part of the set of points in the circumference. Just when you look at a segment, it's contained in the sense that it's inside the boundary. Just not contained in the set. Not sure how to fix this, but just be aware of how this throws people.
-I actually kinda know what an indiffernce curve is, but I struggled with the discussion here in article. Is it really necessary to talk about it in terms of a basket of goods (guns butter, blabla) versus a simple example using currency? Also "vector"? I'm sure that's math econd talk and thinking of things that way helps. But I learned econ without having to think of it s a "vector", but just some curve (functional relationship).
-what are the axes of the curve with the Pareto front thing zooming around? and what is with the tangents to the curve and the perpindicular to the tangent zooming around?
-"Taking the convex hull of non-convex consumer preferences had been discussed earlier by Wold." So? So what?
-It makes me very happy to see the crossed linear supply and demand curves. Happy to see something I know. that;s not so "hard". But connection to the article?
-Maybe if you can more explicitly have a para saying who came up with what, when in what paper (Shapley, Folkman and Starr), that would be good. I mean just reporting who got academic credit even. It just seems confusing when mixed with actually elaboration on the concepts themselves. -Is the whole shebang basically telling me that if we have a lot of zookeepers, we can effectively think of half a lion and half an eagle as the euqivlaent of a single lion or single eagle (like it all comes out in the wash with a lot of actors?)
-Was there like a big edifice waiting for Starr and SF to prove their theorems? I mean like there are parts of math that rely on Reimann hypothesis being true and if it's ever disproven they will come crumbling down (or the converse will be confirmed as that is sole uncertainty they rely on)?
-How much of a big deal was it (is it) that SF and S have this theorem/lemma? Is it like Andrew Wild Fermat's Last Theorem famous?
-How hard was it for them to prove this stuff (like how many equations, how long a paper, how many different aspects of math brought in)?
-"which we define" Who's we?
-closure of a set. I think I got the beginning of this discussion but kinda lost track of the point as it finished.
-I don't know what a summand is or what dimension is? But can these terms be avoided in the lead? Perhaps used in the body for rigor? IOW can the key concept be explained without getting into them, at first?
Sorry, that's the best I can do, at present. Good luck with it. If you want to leave it an article for math-econ grad students, won't bug me. Just giving you my reaction as I try to read it. TCO ( talk) 01:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna butt-in again. Here:
-It makes me very happy to see the crossed linear supply and demand curves. Happy to see something I know. that;s not so "hard". But connection to the article? (TCO)
To understand Starr's economics, one must know that supply and demand are functions of prices, and that the problem is to establish the existence (etc.) of an equilibrium price vector---with good properties (efficiency) for convex sets. (KW)
Since Starr's contribution was in relation to general equilibrium wouldn't an Edgeworth box (with a price tangent line/separating hyperplane) be more appropriate than a single market supply/demand diagram? The animated graphic's pretty sweet though. Volunteer Marek 10:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
-Is the whole shebang basically telling me that if we have a lot of zookeepers, we can effectively think of half a lion and half an eagle as the euqivlaent of a single lion or single eagle (like it all comes out in the wash with a lot of actors?)
It sort of means that if we have a lot of zoo keepers then there will be prices (a price for lions and eagles) at which every zookeeper chooses his optimal combination of lions and eagles and at which the total supply of eagles "almost" equals the total demand for eagles and same for lions. The lemma also tells you what this "almost" means ("almost" could be "exactly" in special cases) (I think). Volunteer Marek 10:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In which case you could say the sum of the two hulls, instead of sum of the two hulls and two sets? TCO ( talk) 20:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The right pane displays the sum of the four sets, which consists of 16=2(raised to the 4th) red dots, all the possible sums of the points in the sets. (Sorry, I have to run.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I know it's your peice de resistance. But I still have to peck at it.