ความคิดเห็นที่ 22
To Boong
I agree with you 100% about the way to teach mathematics for undergraduate economic student. But how to do that? It is just like the chicken-egg puzzle. If you want to interest the students with mathematics, you need someone who really understand mathematics and economics to teach them. How can we have that kind of expert? Where does that expert come from? Mostly, they are the future of those students in that class. So it's like the cycle. To destroy the loop, we need someone outside the circle, such as you, to come back and teach those students. However, it is still not easy. Since by nature of most high school student in Thailand, most of the students who love math or love to think analytically will go to engineering school, so the majority of economics student is still the moderate math skill type. Motivating those students to like math could be done but it is not an easy job. But we will fight for it, right?
PS. Wow, you can prove Black-Scholes completely, so you are better than me in stochastic calculus. I left stochastic calculus for a while now. As far as I remember, my professor uesd one whole month to show all the proofs in details (it including the progressive measurability, quadratic variation, Ito lemma and then the heat equation).
One of my math advisor used to tell me that now the computer can calculate many things in symbolic or numeric, but one thing that the computer cannot do, possibly never be able to do, is to prove!! That's why we have to do the proof in math. Only intelligence can do the proof and we are intelligent.
To AVO
I still see that the paper use deep and fancy analysis in mathematics. If the uses of fixed point theorem for correspondence is not fancy for you, what kind of advanced math you called fancy? However, I still insist that the paper is categorized in modelling type as I defined. It is advanced modelling that I mentioned I want to see in modelling research as comment#14 said.
It is my intention to separate it with pure theoretical research (category 3). We have this discussion because your definiton of pure theoretical research and mine are different. You consider the work of Myerson is in the intersection of category 2 and 3, but I categorize it into category 2 only. Your "Good" paper is not the same as my "Good" paper. As far as I read from your blog and comment#18, your good research must have some characteristics such as "insightful", "meaningful", "useful", "studies important situations". And it seems to me that these are the necessary conditions for you to use to decide which paper is good or bad. It seems to me that the paper that has no use, no example how to use in real world, or there is no situation underlying is bogus paper for you. As a pure mathematician, I strongly disagree. Pure mathematics has its own way to do the research and the research in this field is still going on and on. Many papers just prove something that even the author did not know how to apply it in the real world, but it is interesting to solve/prove it. Functional analysis was born a long time before the physicist used it in quantum mechanics, etc. This is my definition of pure theoretical economic in category 3. It could be very abstract work, I can just change my consumption space into something strange or change its topology. If the change is interesting to do, I will do it and it's a good paper for me. I don't care whether my changing in topology of consumption space will be realistic or can be applied, again, I don't care. Maybe, next 100 years someone will find it useful and can apply it to some situation. But at the present, it's your bogus paper, but very good paper in my view. My opinion may be different from every other economists in the world, but I have my own opinion and I stand by it. Hopefully, one day I might be able to prove them wrong.
จากคุณ :
บ๊อก 
- [
25 พ.ย. 50 04:24:29
]
|
|
|
