Talk:Edgeworth's limit theorem

To do list:

• Integrate more recent writings, such as by Shubic.
• Write sub-pages on the recontracting process, the barter controversy and Mathematical Psychics.
• Add more references.
• Make the criticisms section more detailed, and add defences of the theory to it.

---

What is the precise statement of the "theorem"? I mean, does it have a precise mathematical formulation (it alludes to game theory). Revolver 23:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. This isn't meant to be a precise mathematical statement of the theorem, which involves lots of messy matrices, the equations of exchange and elaborate proofs involving the contract curve. There isn't a simple y = x formulae I could give, the proof is quite involved. This page is meant to be an encyclopedia article which can describe the theory for an intellegent non-economist, which I hope it does. The diagrammatic exposition I've given contains the important insights of the theory, those interested in further detail can read either of the references I've included. Mathematical Psychics is in the public domain, maybe I'll try and find the full text online and link it. Psychobabble 23:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, all I'm saying is, with math theorems, in mathematics, no matter how abstract and "messy" the statement is, the statement is ALWAYS given at some point in the article, although surely not at the beginning or taking up the majority of the article. I'm not asking for a proof, just a statement. It can be done, esp. since paper is not an issue. If you think it can't, browse the math articles. Revolver 23:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Psychobabble appears confused, since he responded to a request for a statement of the theorem (not for the proof) by saying that the proof (not the theorem) is complicated. My guess is there is a simple statement and Psychobabble doesn't know it. Michael Hardy 22:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

user:Psychobabble is abusive

I find Psychobabble's comments abusive. He could just say honestly that he doesn't know, rather than tying to feed us a lot of bullshit. The STATEMENT (NOT the PROOF) of a theorem does not "involve elaborate proofs". The fact that the PROOF (NOT the STATEMENT) is "quite involved" in no way implies that the STATEMENT (NOT the PROOF) is not simple. The article is very opaquely written. Michael Hardy 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I don't log on to wikipedia for months and come back to find I'm abusive. Yay. Anyway, it's been about 2 years since I've done this stuff so I no longer have the material which this is based upon. As you've correctly noticed, I'm not a mathematician (and I did, in fact, begin my previous answer by saying I'm not quite sure what you're getting at which perhaps should have given you a hint). If my answers appeared evasive it's simply because I didn't understand the question being asked (as I said) and I honestly don't know what the diference between a statement and a proof is. The material I based this upon did have full mathematical elaboration of this concept which presumably contained a STATEMENT in addition to a PROOF, but I don't know the distinction so I would not be able to extract it even if I still had the material. I did memorise the full proof to regurgitate in an exam but the information has long escaped from my mind. Feel free to add to the article in a constructive way rather than trying to construct a case to prove my abusive nature. If you wish to do this, then please reply under the new sub-heading I've put up.

PS. Is there any particular need for the cleanup tag to remain? Your objection seems to be to the word "theorem" in the title because this indicates to you that the page should contain a mathematical statement of the theorem. I was using the word in the way undergraduate economists and non-mathematicians usually use the word, ie. an unproved model/approximtion/description of real world behaviour. I think it does a reasonably good job of describing the theory at that level though it's obviously deficient on the mathematical side of things (which isn't important to the intuition described here). Psychobabble 01:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At this time I am not able to add a statement of the theorem, because I don't know it. But your statements continue to be patently incredible. The article as written is completely unclear and quite obviously needlessly complicated. It would be simplified and made clear and comprehensible, by a statement of the theorem, which has not been attempted. Michael Hardy 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that the statement is contained in the material I have now linked. I hope you are able to add it to this article. Psychobabble 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I would add that any article purporting to be about a theorem, that relies on what is here alleged to be (and may be, perhaps) "the way undergraduate economists and non-mathematicians usually use the word", should have a factual-accuracy tag and a cleanup tag. There's no reason why we should condone that sort of thing. Any reasonable undergraduate would be offended by it. To say this "isn't important to the intuition" is nonsense. Anyone reading the article in its present form could only say the "intuition" just isn't there. Michael Hardy 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

user:Psychobabble is actually trying to help here

When I put up this page I tried to find Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics online, because I knew it was in the public domain. It wasn't up at the time, but it is now so I've linked it from the article (here [1]). If someone wants to be constructive and fill in the mathematical holes in this article, Edgeworth sets out this theory from page 17 of that book. The maths is there, it will require someone with a better understanding of it than I to do more than merely reproduce it here. Psychobabble 03:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: It's not the content of the article I called "abusive"; it's your contemptuous dismissal, here on the discussion page, of any proposal to add a precise statement, and your nonsensical suggestion that that would involved complicated proofs, and your suggestion that that would not make the article easier for ordinary readers to understand. Michael Hardy 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear in my reply. My reply wasn't a "contemptuous dismissal" it was a misunderstanding of the question, a misunderstanding I flagged in my first reply and elaborated on in my reply to you. I honestly thought he was asking me to write out the proof. It's as simple as that. I did not (indeed do not) understand the distinction between statement and proof. My position was not only that I didn't know, it was that I didn't know that I didn't know, which is why you might have interpreted me as being dismissive. Anyway, I have linked the tools for you to insert the proper mathematics into this article. If you (or someone else) wishes to do so, then that'd be great. I no longer have the time or patience to edit wikipedia so even if I had the ability to do what you're asking I wouldn't. That's all I have to say on the subject, except to point out that I still find your characteristic of me as abusive bizzare to say the least. Psychobabble 23:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One last word, I've just discovered that Wikipedia now seems to have an assume good faith policy. Might have been nice to follow (ps. I'm not doing this because you clearly didn't think I was acting in good faith) Psychobabble 01:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate title

This article seems inappropriately titled. There are many limit theorems besides this one. I propose that this be moved to Edgeworth's limit theorem. Michael Hardy 14:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)