John Nash won a nobel prize for game theory. No one ignored him. He’s a great mathematician and economist, they made a movie about his life. The whole community mourned when he died in a car accident. No one is ignoring him.
He spoke for 20 years and wrote for that time on the subject Ideal Money that he had been developing his whole life. He toured country to country proposing his idea. Have you head of it, because you just stated you aren’t ignoring him and neither is the community. Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?
edit: (also btw what he was given prizes for was just components and sub-solutions contained within his bigger proposal Ideal Money)
Battles over definitions are interesting, and I would encourage you to become familiar with 37 ways that words can be wrong before challenging definitions.
There is nothing to battle over. I will be using all commonly accepted definitions. But I am particularly interested in whether or not we share the same definition for “ideal”, which is not a challenge or battle.
This is a very bold claim, and would require very confident evidence to back it up. I am certainly not saying no, but the burden of proof is on you to explain why it matters so greatly to be world changing. Please feel free to put together a thesis which describes that.
I have such a thesis’ but why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash’s in order to judge the truth of it? That is irrational.
Again a bold claim, no one is censoring any body of work and if we did it would still be on Wikipedia, or free to talk about it elsewhere (as with the general avoidance of politics)
Yes my thread on it was removed and the mod explained they favor Hayek over Nash which is a clear indication of such bias. If they thought Nash’s proposal had merit and was rational then we would be having dialogue in the main forum like it belongs or AT LEAST in the discussion section.
John Nash… Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?
I haven’t had a chance yet, but it’s now on my list. I am digging into Keynesian Economics and Revealed preference theory at the moment.
I will be using all commonly accepted definitions
I hope so, but just to be clear it’s best to state your premises. Especially when presenting your information.
why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash’s
Nash was a mathematician, I would love to see the easiest explanation to understand that you have.
main forum
Main is currently closed. As a matter of retirement, it’s mostly inactive. And is reserved for posts that both excel in ideas and clear presentation of those ideas to a wide audience. If I were to drop a link to the homepage of wikipedia and suggest all folks need to read it, that would be of little help to anyone, and would not make it to main.
I haven’t had a chance yet, but it’s now on my list. I am digging into Keynesian Economics and Revealed preference theory at the moment.
Nash explains how Keynesian is just another form of failed communism. He explains even post-Keynesians are just Keynesians (alluding to the fact that he is thinking FAR beyond anyone even just emerging crypto currencies. He explains how a revolution will end the Keynesian ero of central banking.
More importantly you said we aren’t being ignorant to Nash, and I showed that you are and still assert we all are. He did something significant with his whole life and stored it in 8 pages. I read more than 8 pages of links from you alone I think ;)
I hope so, but just to be clear it’s best to state your premises. Especially when presenting your information.
My premise is well stated. The introduction of an objective stable unit of value. But the mod moderated my presentation out of existence.
Nash was a mathematician, I would love to see the easiest explanation to understand that you have.
He was much more than that, and the mod removed the explanation! It involves two thread that still exist that I made today though, one on how to solve every problem on this forum, and another that discusses the shared meaning of ideal. Read those and that is the best explanation ever.
Main is currently closed. As a matter of retirement, it’s mostly inactive. And is reserved for posts that both excel in ideas and clear presentation of those ideas to a wide audience. If I were to drop a link to the homepage of wikipedia and suggest all folks need to read it, that would be of little help to anyone, and would not make it to main.
Nash’s works Ideal Money obviously belongs there. Don’t be irrational.
He spoke for 20 years and wrote for that time on the subject Ideal Money that he had been developing his whole life. He toured country to country proposing his idea. Have you head of it, because you just stated you aren’t ignoring him and neither is the community. Do you understand his argument/proposal and what are you doing about the significance of it?
edit: (also btw what he was given prizes for was just components and sub-solutions contained within his bigger proposal Ideal Money)
There is nothing to battle over. I will be using all commonly accepted definitions. But I am particularly interested in whether or not we share the same definition for “ideal”, which is not a challenge or battle.
I have such a thesis’ but why would you ask for mine and not attend to Nash’s in order to judge the truth of it? That is irrational.
Yes my thread on it was removed and the mod explained they favor Hayek over Nash which is a clear indication of such bias. If they thought Nash’s proposal had merit and was rational then we would be having dialogue in the main forum like it belongs or AT LEAST in the discussion section.
Thanks, cheers!
I haven’t had a chance yet, but it’s now on my list. I am digging into Keynesian Economics and Revealed preference theory at the moment.
I hope so, but just to be clear it’s best to state your premises. Especially when presenting your information.
Nash was a mathematician, I would love to see the easiest explanation to understand that you have.
Main is currently closed. As a matter of retirement, it’s mostly inactive. And is reserved for posts that both excel in ideas and clear presentation of those ideas to a wide audience. If I were to drop a link to the homepage of wikipedia and suggest all folks need to read it, that would be of little help to anyone, and would not make it to main.
Nash explains how Keynesian is just another form of failed communism. He explains even post-Keynesians are just Keynesians (alluding to the fact that he is thinking FAR beyond anyone even just emerging crypto currencies. He explains how a revolution will end the Keynesian ero of central banking.
More importantly you said we aren’t being ignorant to Nash, and I showed that you are and still assert we all are. He did something significant with his whole life and stored it in 8 pages. I read more than 8 pages of links from you alone I think ;)
My premise is well stated. The introduction of an objective stable unit of value. But the mod moderated my presentation out of existence.
He was much more than that, and the mod removed the explanation! It involves two thread that still exist that I made today though, one on how to solve every problem on this forum, and another that discusses the shared meaning of ideal. Read those and that is the best explanation ever.
Nash’s works Ideal Money obviously belongs there. Don’t be irrational.