inverse function
in [Lisp]
|
From: Rob Warnock on 22 Feb 2010 22:11 Pascal J. Bourguignon <pjb(a)informatimago.com> wrote: +--------------- | Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes: | > Anyway, this is kind of off-topic now. | | Well, not if you believe the universe is simulation in a computer, | what's more, written in Lisp! :-) | (Even if some believe it's hacked in perl). +--------------- Is that a thinly veiled reference to this Randall Munroe classic? ;-} http://xkcd.com/224/ -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Tim Bradshaw on 23 Feb 2010 04:43 On 2010-02-22 21:56:42 +0000, Tamas K Papp said: > To a certain extent, I agree with you. But the problem is very hard, > and it requires thinking in terms of economic models (vs purely > statistical ones), and general equilibrium (instead of partial > equilibrium concepts). I don't think that anyone without serious > training in economics has a chance. And moreover, progress is quite > slow, at least on the scale of financial companies. They don't have > the incentive to employ people who do basic research, so I don't blame > them. I think that's what disapoints me. My view is that someone who really is a physicist is someone who would look at some problem domain (not just a physics domain) and make a really good stab at understanding it properly, more-or-less whatever it was. Not someone who would just cobble together some na�ve and obviously wrong model and be happy with that. (The same is true for engineers I think.) Of course economics is not easy, but it's not harder than physics (well, perhaps it is, because we don't actually have economic theories that really work very well, and maybe the ones that do work will turn out to be harder than physics, but I'd guess not). > > Nowadays, most universities have a graduate program in "financial > engineering" or similar, and graduates from these programs are > starting to displace physicists (some would argue that they have > already done so in certain areas). Nowadays, students who want to > work as quants can go straight to these programs, so physicists can > concentrate on physics, which is just as well. I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing. Obviously good that banks will no longer be nicking all the good physics PhDs.
From: Tamas K Papp on 23 Feb 2010 05:32 On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:43:04 +0000, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 2010-02-22 21:56:42 +0000, Tamas K Papp said: > >> To a certain extent, I agree with you. But the problem is very hard, >> and it requires thinking in terms of economic models (vs purely >> statistical ones), and general equilibrium (instead of partial >> equilibrium concepts). I don't think that anyone without serious >> training in economics has a chance. And moreover, progress is quite >> slow, at least on the scale of financial companies. They don't have >> the incentive to employ people who do basic research, so I don't blame >> them. > > I think that's what disapoints me. My view is that someone who really > is a physicist is someone who would look at some problem domain (not > just a physics domain) and make a really good stab at understanding it > properly, more-or-less whatever it was. Not someone who would just > cobble together some naïve and obviously wrong model and be happy with I think that you may have an idealized image about physicists. I can understand why, since many physicists are people of scientific integrity. But getting a degree in physics does not imply that a person will behave as a good scientist for the rest of his/her life. >> Nowadays, most universities have a graduate program in "financial >> engineering" or similar, and graduates from these programs are starting >> to displace physicists (some would argue that they have already done so >> in certain areas). Nowadays, students who want to work as quants can >> go straight to these programs, so physicists can concentrate on >> physics, which is just as well. > > I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing. Obviously good that > banks will no longer be nicking all the good physics PhDs. I don't think that banks ever got the good physicists --- the latter _want_ to do physics, you can't just buy them off for some back-office drudge work. I think that banks mostly got people with a degree but no burning interest in the field. And actually, I don't think that they would like to employ someone who would make a good scientist, it is a totally different environment which encourages minor innovations but discourages major ones. If you have the mind of a scientist, the work done by quants would appear to be extremely dull. Tamas
From: Tim Bradshaw on 23 Feb 2010 07:57 On 2010-02-23 10:32:24 +0000, Tamas K Papp said: > I think that you may have an idealized image about physicists. I can > understand why, since many physicists are people of scientific > integrity. But getting a degree in physics does not imply that a > person will behave as a good scientist for the rest of his/her life. I don't think so. I don't really think it's to do with integrity, I think it's to do with curiosity. Or may be I do think so, I'm not sure. > And actually, I don't think that > they would like to employ someone who would make a good scientist, it > is a totally different environment which encourages minor innovations > but discourages major ones. If you have the mind of a scientist, the > work done by quants would appear to be extremely dull. That may well be a factor. Dull but well-paid I guess encourages you not to think too hard.
From: Pillsy on 23 Feb 2010 11:34
On Feb 23, 5:32 am, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:43:04 +0000, Tim Bradshaw wrote: [...] > > I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing. Obviously good that > > banks will no longer be nicking all the good physics PhDs. > I don't think that banks ever got the good physicists --- the latter > _want_ to do physics, you can't just buy them off for some back-office > drudge work. I think that banks mostly got people with a degree but > no burning interest in the field. Speaking as someone who gave up on a career in theoretical physics and spent some time looking for a job as a quant, I think this is essentially correct. I got my PhD and then went on to a post-doc which I basically hated so I started looking for other jobs. The only part of the post-doc I enjoyed was the designing and implementing the Monte Carlo simulations we used (in CL! :)), but in retrospect, I think the underlying research problem was just not that interesting. Maybe it even qualified as back-office drudge work. Once I made my decision to leave academia, well, I'm in the NYC area, so there were quite a few finance jobs that looked like reasonable fits. They paid well, but my primary motivation was, "Goddamn but I don't want to do physics anymore." I ended up in a totally different part of the private sector, but based on my own experience and the experiences of friends who ended up in finance, the banks were getting people with a burning *disinterest* in the field. Cheers, Pillsy |