Sunday, May 4, 2014

Back to the abstract

A frame from the probably-never-to-see-the-light-of-day video introduction to information transfer economics. Additionally, this is probably not an accurate depiction of Fielitz and Borchardt. Graphics borrowed from here.
I saw that Fielitz and Borchardt, whose pre-print inspired me to develop the information transfer model of economics, have added a new reference to economics (in bold) in an update (v3):
Information theory provides shortcuts which allow to deal with complex systems. The basic idea one uses for this purpose is the maximum entropy principle developed by Jaynes. However, an extensions of this maximum entropy principle to systems far from thermal equilibrium or even to non-physical systems is problematic because it requires an adequate choice of constraints. In this paper we apply the information theory in an even more abstract way and propose an information transfer model of natural processes which does not require any choice of adequate constraints. It is, therefore, directly applicable to systems far from thermal equilibrium and to non-physical systems/processes (e.g. biological processes and economical processes). We demonstrate the validity and the applicability of the information transfer concept by three well understood physical processes. As an interesting astronomical application we will show that the information transfer concept allows to rationalize and to quantify the K effect.

I wonder if they saw my blog? I have about 1000 pageviews from Germany ...

UPDATE! I forgot this blog's first birthday! I just noticed the date on the first post (linked up at the top) was April 24, 2013. As a little celebration, here are the top three posts since the blog's inception (I'm actually really proud of all three of these):

1. How money transfers information

2. Entropy and microfoundations

3. The link between the monetary base and interest rates

3 comments:

  1. Peter and GuenterMay 12, 2014 at 7:47 AM

    Dear Jason,
    We would like to answer your question: We saw indeed your (anonymous) blog before submitting our arXiv paper (version v3). However, in our community (physics and chemistry of materials) it would be quite unusual to quote an anonymous blog. Furthermore, our motivation, at that time, was simply to further expand the abstract term “non-physical systems/processes”. Knowing your blog we took biological and economical processes as examples, but we could have also chosen, e.g., sociological processes.
    We appreciate very much that you applied the information transfer concept to your own problems and that you referred properly to our arXiv paper. Since a year we follow your interesting blog, and if we had to prepare the above mentioned arXiv paper NOW, and if we had your real contact data (email, affiliation) we would seriously consider to refer to a (your) blog.
    Like another anonymous commenter (see “Blowing the anti-neo-Fisherite model out of the water”) we strongly encourage you to publish some of your results in a paper on the arXiv. (If you have not enough time start with a short paper and expand/improve the discussion in the next update of this paper. This is a really practical feature of the arXiv.) In that paper you could then refer to your own blog, and other authors could easily refer to your paper/work in the usual/familiar way.
    With best regards
    Peter and Guenter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. And I do understand how citing an anonymous blog would be non-traditional. I am working on a paper that I will eventually submit to the arXiv. One of the reasons it is taking a long time is that I'd like to get some input from economists -- a process that has been slow. I've also been trying to firmly grasp matching theory in economics so I can better understand the connection.

      Thank you for your note,

      Jason

      Delete

Comments are welcome. Please see the Moderation and comment policy.

Also, try to avoid the use of dollar signs as they interfere with my setup of mathjax. I left it set up that way because I think this is funny for an economics blog. You can use € or £ instead.