Economist’s inexact models exactly defective 02

 

(John Nash)

 

A Beautiful Mind? No Doubt!

But Applicability???

 

(UPDATED)

 

Mathematician John Nash - 1994 Economic Sciences ‘Nobel’ Prize - Game Theory

 

BUT, the mathematical brilliance has been wrongly applied by economists. Purposefully!!!

 

Abraham Lincoln was wrong – you can fool all the people all of the time.

 

_______________________

 

APOLOGY:

It has been stated, often, that these papers are repetitive, but please bear with this as some visitors to this site have no previous understanding of finance/economics issues.

The Economic Models that we are accustomed to are so fundamentally defective, and we have been brainwashed with these for so long, that simple repetitive explanations are really the only way to bring home the seriousness of the global situation.

Your patient consideration is appreciated

 

_______________________

 

UPDATE:- Scroll to end

 

(Scan nobelprize.org, economics, prize lectures).

You, as with most people, are no doubt familiar with the Hollywood movie “A Beautiful Mind” starring Russell Crowe, which portrayed John Nash’s life & contributions to mathematics. As John Nash mentions in the interview video at nobelprize.org, the movie took a loose approach to his illness and projected it to a wider degree than was actually his experience.

Whilst the brilliance of John Nash’s work is in no way denigrated, the application, and how & by whom & why it came to be applied, is certainly questioned herein.

It is contended that the application of John Nash’s models have purposefully been used for deceitful, fraudulent, purposes. And, further, that high-powered finance is behind the manipulations to achieve deceptions & frauds, including the deception of the Nobel Prize Organisation..

In looking at John Nash’s work one can become lost very quickly, instantaneously, by the complexity & ‘strangeness’ of the mathematical terminology & expressions. In a similar way you can become lost by the complexity of your car’s fuel injection system - BUT, you certainly can sense when that system is malfunctioning; i.e. you don’t need to know about the internal complexities to realise that something wrong internally is felt externally.

In a similar way, and when viewed from a practical, engineering, perspective one can quickly see that the application, the applicability, of John Nash’s models are incorrect. BUT, Nash’s work has been lauded by economists (hence the Swedish Bank Economic Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel), the question is how, why, by whom, was it lauded for the economics prize. And to what purpose.

oOo

SOME IMPORTANT POINTS:

In short & loosely put:-

John Nash’s Game Theory takes the approach of multi-players seeking to optimise their respective positions through negotiated outcomes. There are two frames in Nash’s game theory: cooperative and non-cooperative games. What Nash’s theory also shows is that cooperative games can be reduced to non-cooperative games.

An equilibrium point (known now as Nash equilibrium) is that optimal point from which no player can make further gains in one variable, without disproportionately greater losses in other game variables.

Points away from the equilibrium (Nash equilibrium) are hence non-optimal, and at the extreme, boundary conditions they become max or min points for any specific player.

In a two player game the boundary points are termed, by Nash, as maximin or minimax.

It is intuitive that maximin is the reverse position for the opposite player whose boundary condition is minimax, and vice-versa. (We’ll just use maximin hereon, the reverse holding true in the opposite player’s position)

It is also important to note that a maximin position, in the extreme, is where the maxi player is the fittest, and the min player the weakest = ‘survival of the fittest’ outcome - this is determined from definition; which implies that cooperative games in reduction are subsets of non-cooperative games.

It is also important to note that a min position for the weakest player is ONLY ACHIEVABLE if the maxi player purposefully adopts that maxi position. Thus a min position is as a consequence of the opponent achieving a maxi position.

(A min position based upon suicidal tendencies is ignored since we are concerned with survival games)

A non-cooperative game can be identified as events occurring in Nature; and it is stated in the 1994 Prize lecture papers that Nash’s non-cooperative game theory has been shown to closely model behaviour in biology, etc.

Therefore, it can be deduced & stated that:-

- a FULLY NON CO-OPERATIVE game is one in which moral & humanity values are TOTALLY ABSENT.

- a FULLY COOPERATIVE game is one in which moral & humane values are TOTALLY, OPTIMALLY, PRESENT

Note CAREFULLY what is being said here, and what this implies:-

These statements imply that if even ONE moral value is ABSENT from a game then the game is NON COOPERATIVE!!!!!

Alternatively stated:- a cooperative game is one in which non-cooperative elements are TOTALLY ABSENT.

A non cooperative game therefore emulates ‘survival of the fittest’ with no, or increasingly diminishing, concerns for moral & humane values.

Consider now:- in the end credits of the movie ‘A Beautiful Mind’ we were informed, as we are in the Nobel Prize lecture text, that Nash’s Game Theory has been widely applied by corporates/institutions in social/business/economic/financial/legal environments.

BUT, it is contended that no one outside of these power entities had previously known this. Nor, it is contended, had you.

It is contended that no bank, no FinServInd institution, no corporate, no business executive, has EVER approached you, or anyone else, and asked that you, or they, be invited to engage in a Nash Game Theory model pertaining to your, or their, bank accounts or investments.

(If this contention is not true then please advise of date, time, place, name of company/person that extended you such an invitation.)

In the absence of any contradiction on this contention:-

- It follows then that transparency, honesty, integrity, are moral & humane values that are ABSENT from the Game Theory model that the banks/institutions did, and still do, apply (as we are told by the movie & lecture text that they did indeed apply Nash Game Theory to their business models) to achieve the prevailing business models to which our wealth/finances are applied by them.

CONSEQUENTLY since we have never been invited to play in these Nash Game Theories it means that we were/are passive, unwitting, players; which means we were/are not cooperating in the games that the banks/institutions engaged in, which means that the games that the institutions did, and still do, play were/are non-cooperative games.

BUT, we were/are led to believe (falsely so) that the Game Theory models have been applied in a positive manner. Why is this? BECAUSE the banks/institutions had no intention whatsoever of ever being honest with us.

Thus far the INAPPLICABILITY, of John Nash’s model by banks/institutions has been CONCRETELY PROVEN.

QED!!!!

Once again, this is NOT to knock the sheer brilliance of John Nash’s Game Theory models, but we need to understand what value, if any, his game has for us in real terms.

oOo

SOME CONCEPTS:

WHAT IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE SCIENCES?

WHAT IS THE SECONDARY PURPOSE OF THE SCIENCES?

Loosely put:-

The primary purpose of the Sciences is to ‘seek the truth’.

The secondary purpose of the Sciences is to develop, or aid in the development of, that truth for the BETTERMENT of mankind.

NOTE CAREFULLY what is being said here, and what this implies:-

A person that uses science for primarily destructive purposes is not a scientist, he/she is a monster. This can be observed:- whilst records of Mengele’s ‘experiments’ can & do provide some positive insights, the primary purpose was grossly inhumane, Mengele was not a scientist, he was a monster.

The intent herein is not to get into a whole bunch of psycho-babble or philosophic-babble about the degrees of betterment versus evil – it is intuitive what BETTERMENT means.

To put it succinctly:

Science is the seeking of truth – sought humanely.

The corollary to that is that if any experiment does not seek experimental results humanely then it is not Science, it is evil.

Compare this to what we know about FinServInd Institutions.

The lying, thieving, cheating by the likes of Donald Gordon, Richard Branson, Lord Levy, Tony Blair, etc. etc. was NOT for the betterment of mankind; BUT, it also was NOT directly evil as that of Mengele. That the dishonest actions of Gordon, Branson, Levy, Blair & others are causing mass impoverishment/starvation is perhaps more an indirect evil inaction; an evil omission rather than an evil commission, a consequence of the fraud being clearly a dishonest commission.

It is left to you to determine in your mind the scale of their evil.

What is TRUTH?

Truth in totality is unknown to us because we do not know what we still have yet to discover. But seeking truth is establishing those incremental truths that collectively add to our knowledge, and take us toward truth in totality.

A truth is, for e.g., that Newton’s law of force = mass x acceleration is an approximation of what we observe to happen in the real world.

A non-truth is, for e.g., that Donald Gordon acted in the best interests of Liberty Life investors/pensioners.

What is MATHEMATICS?

Mathematics is the science of numbers, BUT mathematical theory is not necessarily science. With the pop interest in ‘infinity’, much mathematical theory is clearly beyond tangible reality, and into infinity, and virtual reality (unreality), which is outside the bounds of science.

(Note: If Scotty of USS Enterprise were to beam you to a point into infinity, once at that point everything immediately about you would be finite.)

oOo

PRISONER’S DILLEMMA unDILEMMAed:

To understand better how these games have been incorrectly applied into the real world let’s consider the classical game theory model:- …

THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA (PD) game, is just one of a host of games, but one which provides an excellent example of how unreality (virtual reality), pure theory beyond the bounds of tangible reality, can cause distortions into SEBFL environments.

Briefly, the model is postulated as:- Two prisoners, insufficient evidence to convict, prisoners are separated and both offered a deal, if turn ‘state witness’ then that prisoner goes free. The options that the prisoners then see (as argued by the theorists) are:

a: As.Bb (A silent, B betrays) = A5, B0 (A 5 years, B 0 years)

b: Ab.Bs = A0, B5

c: Ab.Bb = A1.B1 (both get one year)

d: As.Bs = A0.5, B0.5 (both get 0.5 years = 6 months)

There are glaring defects with this model:

1. If both betray then both get 1 year, but this outcome contradicts the offer to go free for turning ‘state’

2. if both remain silent both get 6 months – again this contradicts the model in that there is insufficient evidence.

3. the model overlooks the reality that conviction is based on ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, i.e. probability is greater than 50% - (have you ever wondered how juries/judges calculate this????)

4. the model is not a 2 player game, it is in fact a 3 player game, the 3^rd player being the state (collectively:- the police, prosecutor, etc. rolled into one player, and, in reality, the judges as well, certainly in South Africa.)

5. the model ignores mental & emotional abuse to extract the ‘confession’

6. the model does not factor in probability/possibility of premeditated collusive ‘betrayal’

7. The model does not factor in a non-conviction & false-arrest damages claim, because betrayer falsely (or genuinely) betrayed.

8. the potential of damages is a real component for any prisoner and has been ignored in the theoretical model.

BUT, this kind of PD model IS applied in real life, and with disastrous consequences - one often reads of ‘confessions’ being challenged once the prisoner is in court – it raises the question:- why are confessions, ‘given’ out of open court (and, by induction, in closed interrogation rooms), EVER allowed?

Consider:

For a conviction the prosecutor must convince a judge/jury of three attributes, vis:-

Motive, Opportunity, and Means, AND all of this ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (= greater than 50% probability.)

For 50% probability we must have P(motive) x P(opportunity) x P(means) = 50%.

That means, for equal probability, that P = cube root of 50% = 0.79; say 0.8, or 80% probability Or, it could also be one of a range of permutations: e.g. 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.61 = 0.5.

All of this means that the prosecutor has a more onerous task if a prisoner remains silent.

Thus, it is ALWAYS in a prisoner’s best interests to remain silent because if the prosecutor, in offering a deal, hence admitting insufficient evidence, has concrete proof of two of the three attributes (P = 1) then the prisoner need only rely on the prosecutor NOT achieving P > 0.5 on the 3^rd attribute to be able to walk free on a ‘not guilty’ verdict.

If equal probability on all 3 attributes:– that means that the prisoner need only hope that the prosecutor has no more than 80% probability of proof on each attribute to be sure of an acquittal.

Also, since remaining silent allows the prisoner ample time to construct a defence to achieve this result (freedom), it follows again that it is ALWAYS in any prisoner’s best interests to remain silent when an offer is made to turn ‘state witness’.

BUT, we DO hear FRUEQUENTLY of prisoner’s challenging ‘confessions’ in open court – what this means, on a balance of probability, is that abuse & threats WERE used against the prisoner whilst in detention & interrogation out of public sight. What other motive, other than abusively playing on fear, would a prosecutor have for offering the deal? There is none, it is purely fear generated through power abuse.

FURTHERMORE, since it is statistically in a prisoner’s best interests to remain silent, then, in the event that the other prisoner chooses NOT to remain silent, i.e. opts for betraying, thus willingly but irrationally reducing his own best interests, it has the effect that it INCREASES the silent prisoner’s defence that the betraying prisoner indeed acted irrationally, hence that the betraying prisoner’s ‘evidence’ has doubtful value & must only have been due to abusive inhumane pressure - hence, any court MUST be compelled in disregarding any ‘confession’ outside of an open court.

In addition, any confession in court MUST be supported by trial evidence (cf: SA’s Moodley trial – Leigh Matthews murder – in which the judge failed, by readily accepting Moodley’s confession)

What this means is that our western ‘justice’ models are based upon/derived from “Mengele’ style game theory models/experiments; our justice models are evil, this is observable fact that the Intellectual Doors to courts are closed - barred, bolted, welded shut – we can physically access them to observe, but we cannot intellectually access them for obtaining justice.

BUT, we are deceived into believing that our justice system is fair by the frequent quoting of a defective model statement, vis: ‘Rule of Law’ – this should be changed to ‘Rule of Just Law’. Just Law can ONLY be achieved if the Intellectual Doors of courts are fully open, and fear is absent.

“Ah!, but all of these arguments are simply putting prisoner’s rights before victim’s rights’, you might say.

With respect; absolutely not.

Prison provides no deterrent to crime – this is abundantly clear when one looks at the motivator/cause of crime which is principally the acts of crime that flow when ‘spark of life’ is snuffed out. The loss of that spark is caused by gross disparities that lead to despair, impoverishment, enslavement; and the gross disparities are caused by defective SEBFL systems & controls such as the unitary model interest rate economy control device, the fraudulent investment scams etc., which destroy, restrict, economic momentum.

It follows then that the most effective way of diminishing crime is to ensure that the ‘spark of life’ is not lost, and that efforts to respark a quenched one are made.

This is perfectly clear from the grossly inadequate United Nations initiative against Organised Crime.

Organised Crime (Legal) (OCL) far, far, far, exceeds Organised Crime (Illegal) (OCILL) – OCL is that white collar crime perpetrated by the financially powerful few in the world that impoverish over 80% of the world’s population.

What this means is that by addressing the defective SEBFL models that cause the disparities, that snuff out the ‘spark of life’, that it would accelerate upliftment throughout the world, which would diminish crime, which would diminish prison populations, etc.

BUT, this constructive approach presented by CDADD at the UNODC Convention in Pretoria, Feb 2006, was wrongly suppressed.

(see paper UNODC Convention against Crime.)

What all of this means is that western society has a justice system on which it must be fully ashamed!!!!

The ONLY solution to this is for courts to disregard ENTIRELY any ‘confessions’ NOT made in open court.

Societies are being misled by ‘Mengele’ style experiments, perpetrated by economic ‘scientists’, and based upon pure, untested, theory models within the SEBFL environments that have had no science or engineering inputs – these experiments are NOT Science BECAUSE they are OUTSIDE the bounds of TANGIBLE REALITY.

Western behaviour has become distorted because of the adoption of defective game theory models.

(PROOFS? - Check out reports on Guantanamo Bay, etc. - QED!)

(An aside: The aforegoing arguments, given re PD games, were presented by the writer to SA’s Constitutional Court some 10 years or so ago, they have disregarded it. Look at the ongoing gross abuses in SA’s courts, look at the increasing decline in SA’s stability, look at Zimbabwe.)

The key point that needs to be made about the PD game and ALL theoretical games & models is that they are OUTSIDE of TANGIBLE REALITY, they are involved within UNREALITY, VIRTUAL REALITY - that is NOT Science, it is academic theory, it only becomes Science when they are correctly engineered & tested, and proven.

Recap also: the term ‘social engineering’ has been incorrectly used in the past because appropriately qualified engineers have never been involved.

(see also paper: Infinity, Eternity, Evolution, Creation)

___________________________

Further proofs of gross distortions in the application of game theory can be found:

Theory researchers have taken the PD game further and applied (as they claim) this model into TV game shows – BUT, these game shows do NOT reflect the Prisoner’s Dilemma in the slightest, for very simple reasons: e.g.:-

- the TV players are not subject to non-transparent interrogation with the threat of years incarceration, they are not in fear of abusive threats, they are not in isolation, the pay-offs (of money) are completely different to real cell time, etc.

These TV game shows are further examples of the pursuit of theory outside the realm of Tangible Reality. Even the TV game show itself is outside of Tangible Reality in that the game only applies to a select few chosen to participate, i.e. it is not a universal game hence it does not fall within Economic Science that deals with the universality of the real world.

With clearer understanding that the base model of Game Theory, the PD game, being entirely defective, it leads us to deduce that everything built thereupon MUST also be defective in foundation from a Science & Engineering perspective; it may very well have some correct substance from a purely theoretical perspective that is outside of humane bounds, but not within.

It is also important that each & every incremental development of Game Theory modelling is also tested; it is not sufficient to leave it on the basis that the foundation is defective.

Science is about seeking the truth and FILTERING theory models to ascertain what is truth and what is not.

And engineering is (partly) about testing & proving/disproving the Science Theories within the bounds of TANGIBLE REALITY.

The fact that academic institutions have been prostituted by financial power-players means that the scientists therein have freely chosen to disregard their professional responsibilities for money. It means that the game models cannot be accepted until they are correctly postulated, tested & proven.

______________________

What is happening is that Economists are simply taking theoretical mathematical models and ‘moulding’ them to fit into ‘science’. What is causing them to do this is financial manipulation which comes about because academic institutions are not independently funded, they no longer have academic freedom. This is proven by the fact that professors, having one foot in an academic institution whilst the other is in a financial institution, are prostituting themselves & their academic institutions.

And other economists remain silent - out of fear.

The distortions from this flow into all spheres of society, including into the Nobel Prize organisation as they rely upon academics & practising economists to nominate those eligible for the ‘Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel’.

Similar to the UK’s cash4honours scam, the Nobel Prize has been manipulated by high-powered financial players, and the works, the models, of those rewarded are entrenched into societies, and it is those works/models, being grossly defective, that are causing massive disparities.

This is not unlike Scientists awarding Mengele a prize for his ‘research’, and his ‘head-bashing’ experiments being taken up universally. (Ironically, head-bashing is more humane than the slow lingering deaths of starvation that defective economist models are causing.)

The writer has sent the Nobel Prize organisation a letter requesting that these issues are properly investigated and that future emphasis be placed upon the practical aspects of economic science, including engineering, rather than untested theoretical models.

Further, there is a need to establish a Theory prize so as to differentiate between Scientific advancements and Theoretical advancements – this would give emphasis to historical distortions and significantly reduce wrongful manipulations of Theory into Science

_____________

With understanding of how the FinServInd has deceived & defrauded the world with their defective theoretical models let’s consider again the PD game theory as it is applied to real life prisoners.

That police & prosecutors are pressurised to achieve results (i.e. arrests & convictions, rather than maintaining peace) they are naturally susceptible to all manners of tricks/theories etc. to achieve this end.

That game theory is exactly theory (i.e. it is not Science, because it is not engineered, nor tested) means that since prosecutor’s have been misled into using these defective theoretical models extensively that outcomes are consequently skewed. The skewness takes the form of an increased probability of:-

- a guilty person getting off

- an innocent person being convicted

In the former a minimal success has been achieved – the experiences of the arrest & trial nonetheless provides some deterrent, and nominal isolation from society, plus a ‘mark’ for future observation.

In the latter a host of multiplied damage is done. The guilty person remains free with an increased sense of security that he has beaten the law. The innocent convicted person is traumatised and inducted into the incarcerated criminal world, the person’s family is traumatised & externally punished.

Simply put, the multiplier effects of the defective PD game theory negates the objective of creating deterrents, and actually assists in increasing crime.

Coupled with this negative effect is the reality that crime is primarily generated where disparities are greatest, and these disparities are increased with financial manipulations. The extremes are as we see in undeveloped countries that have collapsed and with those that are at the tail-end of collapse cycles like Zimbabwe, and even with those in the early stages of a collapse cycle like South Africa & Ireland.

High-powered financial players have used their power to create a false illusion of ‘scientific’ models so as to defraud & deceive the world; academic institutions have become prostituted and noble institutions such as the Nobel Prize have been presenting awards for incorrect categories. A prize in Theory does not mean that the underlying work equates to a prize in Science, and a prize in theory or Science does not mean that the underlying work is practical within TANGIBLE REALITY.

BUT, the world has been deceived & defrauded by being misled into believing that this is so.

The Nobel Prize Organisation needs to urgently rethink, and act promptly to put the Nobel Prize back to its rightful place of Noble Institution.

oOo

GENERIC DEFECTS (some) with Nash’s Game Theory models:

So far with regard the PD game - but the insight that we now have with the PD game does not explain those models that have been wrongly applied within economics by Economic Scientists.

- If we look at the lecture text pertaining to John Nash’s Nobel Prize; at page 166 the presenter at this point in the lecture, John Harsanyi (a joint 1994 Nobel Prize winner with Nash & Reinhard Selten), reiterates a fundamental concept stated by Nash pertaining to Game Theory models that Nash developed in/around 1950-53 - and that was: …

“……… Thus, the problem of analysing a cooperative game becomes the problem of obtaining suitable, and convincing, non-cooperative model for the negotiation” (Annals of Mathematics 54; pg 295 Non-cooperative Games; John Nash).

Harsanyi, in his lecture then immediately clarifies this with:

“…. Nash’s programme …. [is] about …trying to reduce cooperative games to non-cooperative games by means of suitable non-cooperative models of the bargaining process among the players.”

(apologies for typo errors)

It is on this point, it is contended, that what is singularly the most critically defective reasoning came into being; and which has steered the world in entirely the wrong direction, with much hardship through massive disparities, reinforcing widespread impoverishment & enslavement throughout the world.

Why is this so?

To recap: the bargaining process is one in which one seeks an equilibrium. BUT, in the non-cooperative model the equilibrium is determined by ‘survival of the fittest’ i.e. a maximin position (= win/lose position).

What all of this means is that:- John Nash as a mathematician developed a theoretical model to analyse particular problems that he had observed in real life. He took a simplified real life scenario, extracted parameters and developed a model to TRY to explain how those real life interactions behaved.

That was in early 1950s.

In 1994 John Harsanyi was expounding how Nash’s model had assisted the social/economy/business/finance/legal environments (at the Nobel Prize lecture).

What Harsanyi was effectively doing was saying that the Game Theory models have assisted society as a whole (this perception by a Management/Business Scientist). And this perception (incorrect) is supported by the Economics fraternity at large, hence the awarding of the Nobel Prize.

What this means is that Economic Scientists took a theoretical mathematical model and authorised its application into the real world, without appropriate engineering, or appropriate testing, of the model.

Compare this to the A380 airbus and the rigorous testing to qualify for acceptance, certification, into service.

The Nash model, as applied within the real human world, is clearly wrong. To understand this we do NOT have to examine the complex mathematics of Nash’s model we only need to examine the real effects of what the model attempts to achieve, and the ways in which it has been applied.

In a similar way; if we want to test the functionality of a cruise controller we do not need to examine the circuitry, we only need to test the inputs & outputs and observe whether it performs to desired specifications. (This statement does not mean that the circuitry is not separately tested)

If the A380 crashed – QED!

With economies crashing after decades of application of Nash’s game theory – QED!!!

- At pg 164 of lecture text, a presenter, Harold Kuhn (Mathematics, Princeton) confirms the economic application of Nash’s game theory models into the real world – economics, politics, biology, etc.

BUT – these applications have been in use for many decades, yet we see a divergence from global stability, not convergence as would be expected from a rational and tested science model.

At pg 170, another presenter, Reinhard Selten, confirms …

‘ … In the case of game theory the flow of methodological innovation did not go in the usual direction from the natural to the social sciences but rather in the opposite one. The basis for this extremely successful transfer is the concept of the Nash equilibrium.’

The defectiveness of this statement is so glaring in light of what we now know. There are no instances of ‘successful transfer’ in economic sciences – check your pensions/investments.

- At pg 171 another presenter Jorgen Weinbull (Economics, Stockholm) confirms Nash’s unwitting understanding (at the time of his developing the model of reducing cooperative to non-cooperative, 1950s)

‘It is unnecessary to assume that the participants have full knowledge of the total structure of the game, or the ability and inclination to go through any complex reasoning processes. But the participants are supposed to accumulate empirical information on the relative advantages of the pure strategies at their disposal.’

Would someone please explain to the millions/billions that are starving around the world that they do not need to understand their ‘game position’ to extricate themselves from it by engaging a maximin, win/lose, game model.

One can understand a young mathematical theorist making such an error of statement, BUT, for Economic Scientists to pick up on this and disregard their professional duties in ensuring correct engineering & testing of models in totally unacceptable.

These are just some of the gross deficiencies in the application (incorrect) of John Nash’s Games Theory models.

_______________________

The main deficiency with Nash’s model comes in exactly at the point of reducing a higher integrity cooperative game model to a zero integrity non-cooperative model. It is precisely the taking of a human model into the animal model, the dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest, world that the theory model (untested) now wrongly taken up as an Economic Science model breaks down. In practical terms:- the application, by economists, of Nash’s model is propounding that the SEBFL environments must be ordered along the lines of dog-eat-dog.

Clearly, this is wrong.

To put it another way; what Nash has hit on, without actually vocalising it, is that he has shown mathematically, the tendency of human nature to slip back into animal nature. And the fact that powerful financial players have purposefully used it to defraud society at large confirms, in practice, that this is so.

And what has happened is that his model has been taken up and developed verbatim without understanding of what this implied in real terms, in human terms.

Further, it appears that the rote application of the Nash model is what has caused the stagnation in robotics development because Emotics has been factored out through the automatic reduction of cooperative (Emotic) games to non-cooperative (Robotic) games

And this has happened because Engineering is absent from the SEBFL environments; i.e. testing & feedback to Scientists, and hence feedback to Mathematicians & other Theorists, has not been present.

Game theory, as we currently see it, is unstable because the boundary conditions between animal & human worlds have not been correctly researched & defined, and modelling theory has not yet developed the humanness of ‘robotics’ to move from non-cooperative to cooperative games; and have instead wrongly reduced to non-cooperative.

(Note: The term ‘emotics’ is proposed here for want of a better term, one that is meaning the opposite of ‘robotics’)

Alternatively stated:- robots are robots because they are not able to internally develop emotics to allow robots to emulate humans; because the mathematical models have ignored the necessary modelling that advances humaneness, that which PREVENTS reduction of cooperative to non-cooperative,

(Cooperative games can only be deemed cooperative if they fall within the bounds of ‘moral & humane’).

Also note, importantly:- The FinServInd industry is an entirely different game to the PD because it is based upon ‘institutions acting in client’s best interests in return for a professional fee’ BUT, the point is that they are purposefully, fraudulently, NOT acting in client’s best interests.

oOo

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

Engineering is not absent for no reason – Business Schools, Economic faculties have purposefully, maliciously, rejected Engineering – no doubt because it poses a threat to their integrity, which it clearly does.

The evidence of this is overwhelming:- The Mastermind of Organised Crime (Legal) – Donald Gordon – as a Chartered Accountant consciously violated his professional & lawful restraints so as to implement his fraud scams; he structured Liberty Life purposefully as the vehicle for same. With the unlawful proceeds he later established the Gordon Institute of Business Science in Johannesburg which is currently headed up by Professor Nick Binnedell. The writer has hand delivered to Binnedell’s PA research proofs of Gordon’s frauds, and also insight to extensive research papers (accessible at www.cdadd.com) that prove that existing social/economy/business/finance/legal structures & controls are massively destructive to societies. Binnedell is just one of a host of academics that have rejected the truths of CDADD’s research. (Other institutions have remained silent - UCT, Wits, Harvard, Yale, London, etc., etc.)

Why has Binnedell & others done this? - because they are paid by Gordon and/or others like him. It is the attraction of money that forces some to willingly slip into the non-cooperative, robotic, animal, game space, rather than enhance the cooperative, emotic, human, game space.

STOP and THINK about this!

Consider from Donald Gordon’s position, back in the late 50s. As a Chartered accountant he is auditing Standard & General, SA’s largest insurance company, as a partner of Kessel Feinstein (forerunner to Grant Thornton & Kessel Feinstein who have been caught out in other international scams along with the other big accounting firms). He sees this mountain of money/assets that has accumulated as ‘reserves’, because pensioners/investors were not being paid their full annuity entitlement (they were short-paid by between 27% to 42% of income entitlement).

That is a huge pile of cash/assets just sitting around and with no pensioner/investor querying their shortfall. What a gold mine - untapped. At this point he schemed on how to tap into it and masterminded the foundation of Liberty Life to mine this ‘reserve stockpiling’ concept to get the reserves into his own hands; he schemed a massive fraud scam rather than act according to his Chartered professional mandate to bring it to the attention of the pensioners/investors.

Having structured Liberty Life, he wanted to make sure that this would not backfire upon him. So he started to scheme on how to protect his new defrauding mechanism. What better way than to transparently make it ‘respectable’. Furthermore the very institution he created, Liberty Life, was founded upon deception and was perfecting the art of deception. So he started looking around for research & researchers that could be manipulated to create theory models to give his scam ‘respectability’.

It is from this that John Nash’s paper eventually was picked up & wrongly promoted into Economic Science, without proper engineering nor testing, not even at Economic Science level.

The deception machinery that Gordon had set up was entrenching even deeper defective concepts; it simply required small prods & suggestions to steer mis-thinking along the same direction.

With SA in the spotlight with Mandela, new Constitution, new State, etc., all this added to the euphoric hype of the time, the focus on building a new SA, investments etc. Defective concepts were easily hidden beneath ever increasing complex layers of deception. The creation of GIBS in 2000 has further entrenched the defective & deceptive concepts.

Binnedell’s refusal, along with other academics, to admit to their gross errors is what is keeping the world economy inherently unstable, hence unpeaceful - and unpeaceful, hence unstable.

This is totally unbelievable, you might say. Well, simply consider that the world’s media & governments have continued the silence, you are not transparently informed of these issues, even today. The deceptions are encouraged.

Check this for yourself - look at the data under Annuities in Retirement (SASI), phone the companies that quotes were obtained from - this was adjudicated by an ex-Reserve Bank Governor & Professor and the data proves itself.

Gordon, and Branson, Varley & others, have remained silent in the face of CONCRETE evidence.

For those in South Africa – Rob Rusconi’s plagiarising of CDADD’s work over pensions, and the dishonest statements by FinMin Manuel & Personal Finance’s Bruce Cameron.

Demutualisation was a fraudulent response by mutual institutions to restructure to tap into the huge reserves stockpile.

Consider the silence of the media over the true facts as set out on this website.

(For further details also see paper: Mastermind of Organised Crime (Legal))

The business/corporate entities within the respective environments that it is claimed to have benefited by Nash’s Game Theory models, have all achieved their outcomes on a non-cooperative, maximin, win/lose, basis; i.e. the business/corporate entities have ‘negotiated’ on your behalf an outcome that is beneficial for themselves to the maximum permissible, and to your minimum advantage, or maximum disadvantage that is; Banks, Investment companies, Financial Advisory companies, retail outlets, etc., etc., etc.

Any hint of ‘customer relationship’ modelling is on the basis of marginal shifts about a grossly disadvantaged customer position.

Nash’s Game Theory models therefore confirm the tendency of man to slip back into the animal game space, and to seek maximin, win/lose, dog-eat-dog, outcomes - regardless of what fraudulent scams are engaged, and regardless of who gets hurt; and it is covered up under the guise of ‘progress’, or ‘globalisation’.

This application of Nash’s brilliant theories is so grossly defective that it can only have been purposefully manipulated; alternatively stated; that it must be considered purposeful unless & until it is proven to the contrary, by the world’s leading corporates & FinServInd institutions that claim to have utilised it in their business modelling. (But, the likes of Donald Gordon, Richard Branson, John Varley (Barclays Bank), Michael Rake (KPMG) do not have the courage to come clean.)

Is it any wonder that intense anger is boiling over into violence, that planes are flown into buildings, busses blown up?

oOo

PERSPECTIVE:

The applicability of John Nash’s Game Theory models into Economic Science has been disproven. The errors lie with Economic Scientists refusing to engage with engineers to develop correct SEBFL systems & controls; this requires engineers to develop experience within these environments.

What is clear from all this is that Nash’s work should have won a theory prize, NOT the economics prize because the models, as they are presented, have no applicability within the economic, political, or any human environment. Further, the Nash models have not advanced moral or humane values - it has been wrongly used to purposefully entrench inhumane practices within the SEBFL environments.

That Nash has developed understanding that cooperative games can be reduced to non-cooperative games, and further, that evil within society is where real ‘games’ are exactly non-cooperative, it cannot be argued that Nash’s models are ADVANCING Economic Science. Nash is arguing, mathematically, theoretically, that we SHOULD be cognisant of the fact that cooperative games are reducible to non-cooperative, and therefore to use these results. He is arguing that society must APPLY models that RETARD society rather than DEVELOP society – BUT, this is done unwittingly, because Nash is not experienced in Economics,

This distortion has come about because of financial power-players manipulating & deeply entrenching lies & deceptions within the BFL environments & pressuring into the SE environments. And these deceptions have created downward spiralling distortions – and we see the distortions, the mass disparities & poverty.

It also explains how & why Engineering Councils have become prostituted, which has caused a serious decline in professional integrity, which is causing plants to deteriorate & some to explode. (SASOL, SAPPI, PBMR Nuclear project, Eskom, 3 Mile Island, Bhopal, etc.)

The problem is compounded further when people are given Professional (Chartered) Engineer status, with full legal responsibilities, when they do not have the basic qualification (BSc Eng) to back it up. The basic qualification is a training ground for detecting & solving problems, without this a Professional Engineer does not have the right ‘tool box’.

(see www.cdadd.com; papers on ECSA & CHAMSA for proofs of SA’s Engineering Council and UCT’s Economics faculty being prostituted. A large number of renowned international economists have remained silent about these issues many of which they were witness to.)

Academics & professionals have become prostituted because high-powered finance (the money-god) is holding sway and has destroyed Professional, and Academic, Freedom & Integrity.

Finance has prostituted the Sciences & Engineering.

Consider also the real import of applications of non-cooperative games (i.e. enforced games) by governments within countries. It explains the nazi oppression in Zimbabwe, and South Africa, and elsewhere.

To clarify:

Mengele’s ‘experiments’ were not Science, they were evil.

In today’s real world the reality is that Economic Scientists are conducting “Mengele’ style experiments – hence, they are NOT Science experiments, they are not Scientists.

oOo

CONCLUSION:

The brilliance of John Nash’s Game Theory modelling must certainly be acknowledged, but its brilliance lies in Mathematical Theory, and perhaps in nature environments, but NOT in Economic Science. It has not, by any stretch of the imagination, been used constructively, humanely, morally, within the realm of humanity, and all attempts made to falsely create a sense of reality out of such imagination have been for deceitful, fraudulent, purposes.

The statement (correct) by Nash that cooperative can be reduced to non-cooperative means that the theory has not been developed sufficiently to model Emotics for the existing models to be included within Economic Science which deals with the ADVANCEMENT, BETTERMENT, of societies in their quest for TRUTH.

A theoretical model has been postulated as scientific theory (Economic Science) but it has NOT been correctly engineered into the SEBFL environments, hence it has not been correctly tested.

The proofs herein also show that the applications of Nash’s models, to the extent that they have been incorrectly applied, have failed within these SEBFL environments.

That does not mean to say that with cooperative games within these environments that Nash’s game theory will not hold in practice; it means that until the models are correctly engineered then they can never be properly tested, hence it can be certain whether they will hold, or not.

However, it is stated that in all probability that Nash’s models, even though brilliant theoretical models, are not likely to be practically implementable.

Further the incorrect applications of these models have had, and knowingly in the minds of the perpetrators (banks/institutions), inhumane, immoral, & seriously negative, consequences for the vast majority of people in the world - enforced, oppressed, disparities causing despair & impoverishment leading to starvation, suicides, murders, violence, crime.

That it has come about to the extent that it has, and been allowed to continue for as long as it has, is an indictment against ‘western’ governments for pandering to the financially powerful few, and in flagrant disregard for their electorate’s mandate.

Politics is about manipulating defective controls of defective systems and giving mindless arguments as to why they have not achieved desired results – the desired results are unachievable because, partly, John Nash’s Game Theory models have been incorrectly applied.

Tony Blair refuses to change.

Ireland’s Independent TD Finian McGrath has asked two rounds of questions in the Dail (Irish Parliament), despite the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern & Ministers Martin & Haughey being fully aware of the pension & investment scams (for which Nash’s game theory was used to hide behind) these ministers continue to duck & dive the seriousness of the issues. Despite having assured that funding will be provided to private researchers Ahern, Martin, Haughey do not honour these undertakings.

PHILANTHROPY is the latest hip term to ‘remedy’ the mass impoverishment. BUT, years/decades of misapplication of defective business models that have caused massive destruction cannot be rectified by global business leaders tossing a few ‘peanuts’ to the peasants.

World-staging pop stars are making token, and mainly self-advancing, calls for poverty alleviation – when it comes to addressing the real issues that are causing mass poverty (defective SEBFL systems & controls) they also remain silent because they recognise the money-god that keeps them comfortable. Narrow focus on baby adoptions, cowboy hats, etc.!

Media reports state that Ireland is now at sixth position for top aid with its E225 Million donations over 4 years.

Wow! You might say, but Ireland has budgeted E6.1 Billion on funding for new ways to extract sweat from the rest of the world. The 225 Mill is simply peanuts be thrown back in token gesture, and no sincere effort to reform SEBFL systems & controls to prevent ongoing impoverishment.

And don’t overlook that Ireland’s new found wealth is not self-generated, it stems from freebie hand-outs & reliance on cheap Asian sweat-shop labour.

The ‘whys & wherefores’ of all this being able to happen in the 21^st Century is a separate issue – but if one listens to the prize lecture by 2006 Economic Science Nobel Prize winner, Edmund S Phelps, at nobelprize.org, then the very last sentence he speaks will give an indication of where the ‘whys & wherefores’ lie - this is for a another paper.

BUT, Edmund Phelps has refused a request for a copy of the text that he used in his Economic Science Prize lecture. He has not given adequate reasons why he refuses, but says that he will issue a ‘polished’ version around June – it is difficult to understand how much more polished a text can be than that for a Nobel Prize lecture..

TO STRESS ONCE MORE - what is again proved by this paper is that the absence of engineering within the SEBFL environments is a principal cause for so much global instability & unpeacefulness.

The concerns & proofs that Economics/Commerce/Finance faculties, and especially Business Schools, no longer being independent & honest, and that the Economics Prize has been manipulated for deceitful, fraudulent, purposes have been sent to the Nobel Prize Board/Committee/Nominators and to the Bank of Sweden (as will a copy of this paper).

(for further insights see paper: CHAMSA Economics for Prosperity)

For Nash to justify the Economics Prize he needs to develop the human conditions for his Game Theory, to entice (compel?) man to move away from the unstable maximin, animal, robotic, win/lose, ‘solutions’ and towards stable, humane, emotic, optimal, win/win (win2) solutions.

There is an urgent need for governments, academic institutions, and certainly business schools, to fund engineering initiatives into the SEBFL environments.

Abraham Lincoln was wrong – to all intents & purposes, within & across generations, you can fool all the people all of the time.

Ironically, his statement that you can’t was deceptively used by FinServInd Institutions to calm doubts about their inherently corrupt industry.

A Beautiful Mind? No Doubt! - But Applicability HAS BEEN DISPROVEN!!!!

APOLOGIES AGAIN FOR THE REPETITION – BUT, IT IS HOPED THAT THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR.

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

(under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC’s oppressive XDR-Nazi system)

_________________________________

UPDATE:

OPEN LETTER:

To: John Nash
c/o email addressees & via fax: (001-609) 258-1367. (faxed Tuesday March 4, 2008 @ 13h31 Ireland)

CC: as per addressees & www.cdadd.com

From: Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
Fax: +27 86 686 9449, or contact via website.

March 3, 2008

A stated last year I acknowledge the brilliance of your mathematical works but, as per my paper of April 2007, the applicability of your work into the social/economy/business/finance/legal (SEBFL) environments has been totally incorrect & for fraudulent purposes by other persons.

Your statements in the BBC, Adam Curtis, documentary ‘The Trap’ Part 2 (viewable at www.freedocumentaries.org) and especially at minutes 56 – 58 shows that you have changed your mind. As a consequence of my paper you are ‘experiencing doubts’ about the assumptions of your models into human behaviour.
(www.cdadd.com; ‘Economists’ inexact models exactly defective 2 (Nash))

I have made a number of requests for you to engage in communication with me to discuss these issues but there has been no response.

I take cognisance of your past illness & admissions to same and in no way am I attempting to put distressing pressure onto you – but I do urge you to think further about the mis-applications of your models into societies. I also encourage direct communication to explore constructive ways forward so that correctly engineered solutions can be found to the serious problems that have developed globally as a consequence of other persons fraudulently miss-applying your models.

Your models need to be reconsidered if it is anticipated they are to explain real life circumstances. My paper clearly shows that the fraudulent miss-application of your brilliant mathematical models has caused much evil to emanate around the world.

In all fairness; does the extremely limited admission in the limited film-bite you make in ‘The Trap’ fully correct the grossly incorrect impressions generated by the global circulation of the movie ‘A Beautiful Mind’? The global circulation of the closing text statements in the film far exceeds the limited viewership of the BBC documentary. I am sure that you will correctly see that this is so.
Does your limited admission offset the global perceptions that have been generated by publicity subsequent to the ‘Nobel’ Prize award? I am sure that you will see that it does not.

It would be correct to say that there is an imposed responsibility that falls upon you to transparently correct those misperceptions as widely as possible & as quickly as possible.

It would also be appropriate if you were to return the ‘Nobel’ Prize Citation, along with a public statement. I am not suggesting that you return the financial award as nothing would be served by putting you & family into financial stress.
But, it is important that the world is made aware of the fraudulent mis-applications of your models by others; and to put the initiative into the Nobel Foundation’s & the Royal Swedish Academy’s court to rectify the gross wrongs that have occurred, not only with your award but also with the incorrect awards to other mathematicians & others who have projected grossly defective models.
To date the Nobel Foundation & Royal Academy of Sciences refuse to engage honestly & transparently.

It is important to recognise that taking such a step of forthrightness would give positive feelings not negative ones, and if negative ones are felt then further thought & discussion to gain correct perspective is needed.

As with any engineering project there are always errors creeping in & it hurts when it turns out that the fault rests with oneself – but the distress is even greater if attempts are made to hide it, the distress is short-lived once one openly admits to it. The same applies within science & mathematics research.

An honest admission makes one stronger

I strongly urge that you do right and rectify the significant incorrect impressions that prevail.

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
(Under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC government’s oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by corporate & academic worlds.
XDR = Extreme Democracy Resistant.)

END OF UPDATE: