Economist’s inexact models exactly defective 08
(R Myerson, E Maskin, L Hurwicz 2)
Models do NOT meet the required criteria set out in Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will
The 2007 Economics joint-Prize Winner’s works do NOT meet the required criteria set out in Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will.
Directors of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, & Nobel Foundation, are wrongly rewarding grossly defective mathematics models that have no scientific, nor engineering, bases = misleading governments
Myerson’s ‘Force & Restraint’ is a restricted game domain proposition that is promoting war-mongering advice.
The only way to convince a world leader is to demonstrate the defectiveness of the specialists’ theories – BUT how do you get the world leader to listen??? AND, when eventually listening, to understand???
Honesty & integrity within the Nobel Foundation is consequently of utmost importance.
__________________________________
It is recommended that you read the previous papers in this series – click on ‘view now’ Historical Archives (lhs panel).
This series highlights the gross defectiveness of Economic Scientist’s models that are causing gross injustices & instabilities throughout the world. The previous papers concern past Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize winners:-
1. Milton Friedman, Lucas, Aumann
2. John Nash (portrayed in Beautiful Mind by Russell Crowe)
3 & 4. Edmund Phelps
5 Robert Mundell
6 Nobel Prize Hijacked
7 R Myerson, E Maskin, L Hurwicz 1)
oOo
(Please Note: This website is about the pioneering of ENGINEERING into the SEBFL environments, it is about seeking truths; it is NOT about journalism, English grammar or prose, or quick-sell – it is down-to-earth engineering & pioneering requiring extensive & intensive THINKING.
SEBFL = social/economy/business/finance/legal environments.
Explaining transmission mechanisms & pre-empting catastrophic failures is NOT doom-prophecy, it is explaining probabilistic reality.)
__________________________________
INTRODUCTION
THIS IS THE SECOND PAPER addressing the 2007 ‘Nobel’ Economics Prize joint-winners. The previous paper dealt with the various releases by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science (concerning the works by the 2007 joint-winners).
Understanding of the technical defects within these releases showed that the works by the joint-winners do NOT meet the requirements of Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will.
Consequently a request was made to the Nobel Foundation, and copied to RSAS, that the prize award should be revoked and an Appeal Process be established to reconsider the award for 2007.
Further correspondences (pasted below) suggest that the prize, being a Sveriges Bank prize in memory of Alfred Nobel, does not need to comply with Nobel’s Terms of Will – this is wrong thinking.
One cannot use a deceased’s name to perpetrate dishonesty.
_____
THIS PAPER assesses the defects within Roger Myerson’s paper ‘Force & Restraint in Strategic Deterrence: A Game-Theorist’s Perspective’. Myerson gave this paper of his as a practical application example of his game-theories.
In short it is war-mongering advice.
It will be shown herein that Myerson’s paper is grossly defective in technical & moral terms and, as it is the only ‘practical application’ example that the writer could find & that Myerson would (could) provide, that it shows the grossly defective advice that governments are receiving from leading academics who are wrongly posing as ‘economic scientists’.
It partly explains the inability of governments to find peaceful solutions to many of the world’s problems – leaders are listening to bad/defective advice, hence their policies fail.
Putting into Perspective:- Twin Towers an inside implosion job with people inside the building – by financial power players that are engaged in the same global network as Richard Branson, Donald Gordon, Lord Levy, etc.!!!
________________________
FORCE & RESTRAINT IN STRATEGIC DETERRENCE – warped war-mongering thinking.
(http://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/research/restrain.pdf)
Myerson’s ‘Force & Restraint’ paper was based on a talk he gave at the Chicago Humanities Festival on Peace and War on November 11, 2006. It is important to recognise that Myerson’s intent was to expound ‘professional’ advice to government, corporate, academic, social leaders and to societies in general – his paper can thus be viewed as a ‘practical application’ with the intent of steering macro-policy direction. Myerson specifically referred the writer to this paper of his in response to a request for a practical application example. The writer could NOT find any other practical application examples to prove/disprove the game-theory models that Myerson & other joint-winners have developed.
Myerson’s paper reflects & reinforces the aggressive standpoint of the United States - which is fuelling further anger against the US, which then produces greater aggression in return; a downward spiralling dynamic.
The mindset is similar to that conveyed in the ‘9/11 Commission Report’ (Pg 374, last sentence) – i.e. false justification for destructive war-mongering.
Myerson, in his Force & restraint paper, raises President George W Bush’s statement (concerning opposition to his decision to initiate the war on terrorism):- ‘I’m not sure how I’d best explain to the American people: ‘Say, vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I’m going to wait for somebody else to act.’’
Myerson then tonally supports Bush’s position when he, Myerson, resorts to a ‘philosophical’ argument, by Jonah Goldberg, to the effect that numbers of voices do not make a wrong right, nor does a lone voice in rightness become wrong because of greater (or louder) opposing voices.
Myerson then states: ‘The image of the lone defender of justice (i.e. Bush) is a good one ….’
Myerson having used this to set an emotive tone then sets out his game-theoretic reasons as to why it is right for an increasingly isolated US President to maintain his view of rightness despite the increasing multitudes of voices (intuitive voices, that are admittedly without countering proofs) stating he is wrong.
The issue is how to determine who is right, and who wrong. One must look at the facts – and looking at the facts of Myerson’s practical application of game-theory we find that it is entirely defective.
Whilst President Bush is a million percent correct in his argument that he must initiate action – the question though is what form should his ‘action’ take.
As argued herein, and on this site, the advice that was, and still is, being given to Bush & other world leaders is entirely wrong because the advisors’ theoretical models are wrong.
The point is that the game-theoretic models & reasons are defective, but at the time, and even now, the masses were not aware of this. Nor was the President, nor Blair, who were misled into believing that their joint position (of declaring war on terrorism, and hence Iraq) was right. They were misled because the specialists, who were advising them, with their theoretical analytical models were being lauded by academic peers (and now lauded with a wrongly awarded ‘Nobel’ Prize); which academics collectively have had no practical experience or testings of their models, which models are herein once again proven to be grossly defective.
One cannot simply expect Bush, or Blair, or any other world leader to be all-knowing - they have to rely on advisors. The crux of the issue is that the ‘network’ in which advisors operate is itself distorted because of financial manipulations.
And the proofs of this lie in the fact that the Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize is being awarded to people who have developed defective models, who are not appropriately qualified, who have no understanding of science or engineering.
_____
The opening sentence of Myerson’s paper is cause for great concern (‘In a dangerous world, we need to think very carefully about how military force is used’)
Myerson opens with a loaded statement that steers one immediately into a narrow, restricted, region of the holistic domain that relationships should be concerned with, and the restriction is to within the region of aggression.
Hi first para ends with a loaded question raised within the aggression region‘…what can we do to minimize the risk of such adverse reactions against us?
Myerson has two extreme positions: Restraint (passive aggression), and Force (active aggression) – he TOTALLY ignores the domain of peace, both passive & active.
As discussed in a previous paper (Peace & Economy Stability, Mutually Inclusive) one cannot have peace without economy stability, and nor economy stability without peace. Myerson wrongly excludes the peace region from his game-theory domain and thus reduces his game domain to solely a domain of aggression – consequently we see the USA CAUSING global instability.
The import of this restricted game domain of aggression is that the continued presence of defective & destructive social/economy/business/finance/legal (SEBFL) environment models, (i.e. the absence of correctly engineered models) exactly causes the disparities that causes impoverishment/enslavement that creates the aggression/terrorism against which the western world react.
_____
Having set a wrongly restricted domain in the first 3 pages of his paper Myerson commences page 4 with ‘Game theory as a form of analytical narrative.’
His opening sentence: ‘Game theorists study mathematical models of social interactions.’
Herein lies the fundamental reason for game-theory models being defective – the theorists are simply STUDYING they are not TESTING, nor APPLYING the theories. (Myerson has still failed to provide any practical application examples that prove his theories).
Myerson’s next sentence: ‘ … game model should be simple enough to understand but should share some important similarities with the more complex situations to conflict and cooperation that we face in real life.’
As shown in the previous paper, and again herein, even in simplistic form the game-theory models are defective.
Myerson’s use of ‘cooperation’ is restricted to the domain region of aggression only – this use of ‘cooperation’ is a contradiction within the region term name (namely aggression).
Aggression exactly contradicts cooperation!
Cooperation is also very much determined by who controls the largest & loudest voices; and these are the media – and that means that the USA has the biggest & loudest say; and that means that the strongest power ALWAYS claim that anyone opposing them are terrorists.
And Myerson’s defective models seek to reinforce this warped opposition.
Myerson also argues: ‘Models in game theory are just stories of another kind.’ – and uses collective symptoms to create an illusion that he is dealing with causal problems. He is not dealing with causal problems he is dealing with symptoms – hence his models do not produce correct/workable outcomes = government policies fail.
_____
At page 5 Myerson moulds Bush’s dilemma around the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ model.
As shown in the second paper in this series (John Nash) the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ model is entirely defective within the context of application to a prisoner and is causal of many incorrect convictions (and no doubt executions). (Note: the morality issue of executions is not the point raised, it is the incorrectness of the judgement based upon a defective model that is the issue).
BUT further, Bush is NOT a prisoner – it follows then that Myerson’s application of the Prisoner’s Dilemma’ model to Bush is also wrong, no matter how loosely applied.
This is clear for the simple reason that Bush has no threat of immediate incarceration, nor any inducement to avoid or diminish an otherwise immediate incarceration.
Therefore the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ is not, CANNOT be, applicable to a non-prisoner scenario. The continuing analysis by Myerson within his paper is consequently also defective.
Nevertheless let’s consider other defective issues raised by Myerson.
_____
Myerson’s two dimensional, two player, game model of A (USA) & B (implied as being Iraq), is incorrectly portrayed because of the restricted game-theory domain solely to the domain region of aggression only; i.e. to the exclusion of the domain region of peace.
Myerson’s use of ‘cooperation’ is incorrectly used in place of ‘passive aggression’ (Restraint), and the term ‘aggression’ is incorrectly used in place of ‘active aggression’ (Force).
Within the restricted game domain Myerson also uses arbitrary values for the various outcomes to illustrate the points he raises – but the model is a purposefully restricted game domain to predetermine and ‘justify’ any particular desired position.
Thus the arbitrary ‘values’ are valueless, and hence the game-theory model again is also valueless.
A manipulated model being further manipulated to justify the original manipulation = convoluted & spiralled jiggery-pokery.
(Within his paper Myerson essentially manipulates to justify Bush’s decision to go to war, which decision was based upon defective game-theory models.)
Myerson gives NO consideration to the fact that the USA’s defective economy models are creating the impoverishment to which billions are becoming angry and from which anger comes the violence against which the USA must protect itself.
These impoverishment issues are at the core of Alfred Nobel’s Prize yet they are ignored by the RSAS who then consequently promote ‘mathematics’ & defective war-mongering models that wrongly cause global oppressions.
(At page 15 Myerson promotes the following war-mongering ideology: ‘We need a reputation for responding forcefully against aggression, but we also need a reputation for restraining our responses within clear limits that depend in a generally recognized way on the nature of the provocation.’ – i.e. at best passive aggression!!!)
Myerson leads the reader into further defective complexities within this restricted game-theory domain.
He also argues that people are or can be ‘irrationally or pathologically drawn to violence’ – the truth is that disparities are predominantly caused because the powerful players purposefully restrict the game-domain to the aggression region only. The powerful refuse to actively enter into the peace region.
It follows then that the deductive reasoning by Myerson throughout his paper is totally incorrect.
Amongst a host of warped arguments Myerson gives liberal sprinklings of suitable technical terminology to give a seasoned taste of (false) authority. Much like MSG in food it misleads the masses from the true flavours.
How should the USA reduce the provocation? – by engaging within the peace region, with active peace measures that remove the impoverishment/enslavement that is creating the anger.
_____
Maximising expected payoffs
A fundamental point of game-theory is that players are expected to maximise their expected payoffs – but the game-theorists fail to recognise that expected pay-offs roll out over many years & decades, even centuries.
The basis of Myerson’s application (vis: as advice to President Bush) is that the pay-offs are only short term – his model & his analysis does not attempt to qualify or quantify medium & long term payoffs for each scenario. It seeks instead to give immediate support to President Bush’s beleaguered position.
The reality however is that the payoffs are all negative, even though Myerson wrongly indicates positive payoffs, because the game domain is restricted to the aggression region only.
_____
Equilibria.
Myerson argues that certain game-play positions are equilibrium points, and certain are Nash equilibrium points.
The use of the tem equilibria/um is entirely wrong.
It is not intended to go into any heavy mathematical debates because it is pointless debating a model that has already been proven defective, it is up to the original designers to redesign appropriately, if at all possible.
But it should be noted that the equilibria referred to are not equilibria, at best they would appear to be ‘turning points’ or ‘transition points’ on a game continuum.
(For those with some maths background it would be more like turning points on a polynomial function; it is further suggested that if this comparison is reasonable that a minimum turning point would indicate a point of stability, and a maxima turning point one of instability – cf potential/kinetic energy. But this is simply a casual thought.)
Also, since the ‘equilibria’ referred to by Myerson is within the aggression region then by induction it means that one cannot obtain an equilibrium, simply because if either party is even passively aggressive it means that it cannot be a long term position because no one will happily maintain a subdued, oppressed, position beyond a short term. Therefore in the real world there cannot be long, or medium, term equilibria within the aggression region, hence the model does NOT reflect realism.
Hence it totally eliminates any possibility of conferring the greatest benefit upon mankind exactly because it confers the greatest potential of destruction towards mankind..
This can be seen by considering B who would normally choose Option 1 (within the peace region) to the total exclusion of Option 2. But powerful A imposes Option 2 onto B, or A will hit B.
Clearly Option 2 is in the aggression region and cannot be an equilibria point.
A real-world example is:
Option 1 - as a rational multi-component interest rate economy control-device.
Option 2 - as the forcefully imposed irrational & destructive unitary model interest rate device
_____
Judging Reputations:
At page 10 Myerson raises the scenario wherein the assumption that a player’s aggression observed by the whole world is no longer valid. Myerson argues that perceived aggression between parties must then be judged by others.
BUT, the scenario where the aggressive player is the most powerful & most wealthy in the world relies upon there being a higher moral authority and one to which the most powerful player will defer.
In the game that Myerson argues, the most powerful player is the USA – and we know that the USA did NOT defer to the United Nations, or to the Pope, or to anyone else in its decision to declare war on Saddam Hussein – the USA & UK jointly acted together, on uncertain (now baseless) evidence, and against higher moral authority.
At the time of 9/11 & the Gulf War the work by CDADD, in exposing & proving the gross defectiveness of economics models (including game theory), was not developed, hence Bush & Blair were strongly influenced by the then prevailing (defective) models; including Myerson’s. BUT, we are now fully aware of the gross defects in these game-theory models yet those leading academics that developed the defective models are refusing to be honest about this, they continue to advise world leaders on their grossly defective models.
Leading academic institutions continue to laud these defective models.
How then can we look toward external judging as being a solution if the judges are not prepared to be transparent & honest. And the proofs that the judges are not prepared to be honest lies in the RSAS’s refusal to engage an Appeal Process concerning the wrongful awarding of the 2007 Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize to the joint-winners.
Numerous emails to the Royal Swedish Academy of Science requesting that the 2007 Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize be revoked and reconsidered under an Appeal Process is yielding no moral response. What then can the Nobel Foundation do about it since Alfred Nobel’s Will clearly stipulates that the RSAS is the deciding institution for sciences? Even though it is a Sveriges Bank Prize it is nonetheless under the auspices of Nobel’s Terms of Will hence the decision is by the RSAS; if not then by whom?
(The Nobel Foundation would have grounds to initiate a legal action in the Swedish Courts, but would they????)
At some point it requires a person to be honest & transparent, one who is free from financial or other power inducements. Who is that judge?
Also, since Myerson, in the full light of the proofs by CDADD of the defectiveness of his (Myerson’s) game theory models, is refusing to hand back his ‘Nobel’ prize award it clearly shows that not only does his game theory model not work but also that the integrity of the founder himself is in without substance, hence Myerson also is not a suitable judge.
The corollary to this is that it simply adds more weight to CDADD’s proofs that Myerson’s (and Maskin & Hurwicz’s) models are in truth grossly defective.
These defective models are being used to wrongly advise leaders – hence global aggression is the norm, the peace domain is entirely ignored.
One cannot judge by dishonesty.
_____
It only requires a component for any machine to fail just ONE of a number of quality tests for it to be rejected outright.
Myerson’s game-theory model, as he has applied it to an actual real-world problem (vis: the United States President analysing his options for an executive decision that will impact upon the world) has been shown herein to have failed not on just one point but on a whole host of points.
Myerson as a mathematician fails to recognise that mathematics being an abstract concept includes all possible solutions both real & imaginary. A scientist is supposed to eliminate the imaginary ones, those that fall outside of the bounds of reality. Myerson has not done this because he is not a scientist.
________________________
Opening up the game domain.
(The points here are not intended as in-depth, merely an indication of direction)
If we were to open up the game-theory domain, from Myerson’s wrongly restricted domain region of aggression, to a more realistic real world model then we would be looking more correctly at the domain region of peace, and how the options within this region could effectively be used to diminish the global tensions that are wrongly steering attention into the aggression region.
To put this into perspective let’s consider a simple scenario: - a person (B) is sitting in the desert dying of thirst & hunger but has nominal cash on hand. On the edge of the desert sits an all-powerful, all-wealthy, person (A) who sees the one in the desert.
In this model it is really up to A to make a move, A has a number of options which fall within a continuum spectrum:
In the aggression region:
- let B die (restraint, passive aggression), little consequence in the physical world (issues of the hereafter depends upon A’s beliefs, but are ignored for this model).
- put B out of his misery (force, active aggression)
In the peace region
- B can be fed & watered for a price determined by the monopolist A (passive peace)
- B can be fed & watered at no charge (active peace)
It is important to note, and intuited by Myerson’s restricted analysis, that a massive barrier exists between the aggression & peace regions; and, further, that the barrier region has a significant ‘grey’ area. This can be seen by considering the ‘cost’ of providing relief – what is seen as reasonable by the wealthy is seen as extortionate by the poor, so whilst Powerful A thinks he is being kind, Weak B feels he is being exploited.
The typical western response to violence by Weak B when the nominal efforts by Powerful A have been rejected by B is for A to impose sanctions, i.e., for A to revert back to passive aggression, if not active aggression.
What flows from this is that the only peaceful option to attain equilibria, and hence stability, is for A to elect for fully active peace; regardless of whether B reverts back to aggression.
We can see significant truth in this simply by looking at China and how it is transforming because of greater integration into the world. BUT, we can also see with Russia, who are further down the integration track, the dangers of not properly engaging rational economy structures & controls because the destructive, irrational, western economy controls & structures cannot maintain a peaceful existence in underdeveloped regions, nor within developed nations, because these defective structures & controls actually put Powerful A into the aggression region, because they are aggressive non-peaceful systems structures & controls.
Herein lies the real cause for global ‘terrorism’ - hence the ongoing violence by ‘pathological’, ‘irrational’ terrorists/fundamentalists is in fact rational, easy to understand human behaviour.
________________________
Putting into Perspective
Myerson is quite correct in assessing that we live in a dangerous world – despite advanced intellectual institutions by the hundreds within the western world the danger is created by educated western leaders refusing to engage within the peace region, and actively. Instead, at best, they prefer to limit to passive aggression.
The world is in serious danger because the ‘global police force’ and its ‘deputies’ have become gangsters because they are listening to bad advice.
The bad advice stems from bad advisors who are either; purposefully misleading for narrow, personal, interests & gains, or are unwittingly not understanding the errors in their advice due to inexperience. If the former they are criminals, if the latter they are accessories at best, criminals if they refuse to honestly & transparently rectify their errors.
The crimes that are being perpetrated are global and are crimes against humanity because they include passive genocide through impoverishment/enslavement, orchestrated mass murders, etc., which are all part of a global financial power-structure whose players have an ‘open global economy’ initiative that, as can clearly be seen, is massively destructive to societies globally, but financially rewarding to them alone.
(The probability is so high that it is a certainty, from evidence and eye-witness’ reports, that 9/11 was an orchestrated crime with coordinated eastern ‘terrorist’ attacks added to give a fronting. The eye-witness reports & replays of recorded footage of demolition charges that caused the collapse clearly show that certain parties, ‘financial powers’, were behind the wilful & premeditated implosion of the towers, and whilst thousands were in the buildings.
It is IMPOSSIBLE that an unlawful controlled demolition AND a two plane terrorist attack on Twin Towers happened independently, by chance, on the same day; AND with military conveniently engaged ’elsewhere’. It is also IMPOSSIBLE for ‘fundamentalists’ to have orchestrated a complex web of explosives in both Towers.
Add to this the evidence of gross irregularities concerning/surrounding:
- scrapping of the ‘cash 4 honours’ investigation/prosecution
- distorted representation of justices in South Africa’s Constitutional Court so as to emasculate the Constitution
- buying-off of SA High Court judges by Barclays Bank.
- cover-up of global pension frauds.
- refusal by governments to reform the destructive unitary-model interest rate economy control-device.)
- more Labour party donation irregularities.
The reality is that the financial powers that planned & executed Twin Towers operate within the same global network that controls the markets, the media, governments & corporates – and this network includes Branson, Gordon, Levy & many others.
It is government leaders that are controlled by financial powers, coupled with advisors also controlled by financial-powers that are causing grossly defective & destructive economy system structures & controls.
Ireland is in the beginnings of widespread evictions not dissimilar to that of the potato famine – the difference is that the famine is with finance rather than potatoes (which were very much bartering money). Ahern’s dishonesty is sinking Ireland – the Irish people do not understand that their history of poverty stems from their wealth (pensions, etc.) being stolen thus starving the economy of its financial life-blood, and that the flood of money under the Euro has simply stolen their National identity.
The tens-of-millions of poor in South Africa are far worse off than under Apartheid – and President Mbeki is losing popularity because of his dishonesty, along with Finance Minister Manuel & others, in plundering State coffers and refusing to acknowledge that the western economy models are grossly defective.
The reason that honesty & transparency is not coming through is because institutions such as the Nobel Foundation, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, etc. are not honouring their obligation to reward those the do provide ‘greatest benefit on mankind’, and instead reward defective mathematics models.
__________________________________
CONCLUSION:
The 2007 joint-winners of the Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize have NOT conferred the greatest benefit on mankind – they have conferred defective models that actively promotes war-mongering.
In short; any game-theory that restricts the game domain to unreasonably narrow regions will NOT provide meaningful insights. Further, within a peace/aggression domain in which the peace domain is entirely suppressed it can ONLY create instability, NEVER stability.
Equilibria can NEVER occur within the aggression region.
The aforegoing is intuitive and also revealed when the domain region restrictions are seen for what they are.
Myerson’s practical application of game-theory has NOT ‘conferred the greatest benefit on mankind’, in fact it greatly assists to confer the greatest destruction upon mankind by failing to maintain a holistic game domain.
Despite efforts by the writer to find practical applications of game theory as developed by the 2007 Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize joint-winners none were found; Myerson put forward his Force & Restraint paper as a practical example.
On the facts set out herein concerning Roger Myerson’s Force & Restraint paper it is ABUNDANTLY clear that the works by the joint-winners of the 2007 ‘Nobel’ prize in Economic Science does NOT comply with the terms of Nobel’s Will.
The reasons include that:
- it is mathematics not science
- it has not ‘conferred greatest benefit on mankind’
- it is not the ‘most important discovery’
- it is not the ‘most important improvement’
- it is not the ‘most worthy’
INSTEAD:
- it actively promotes exclusivity not inclusivity
- it actively promotes war-mongering mindsets not peace
- it actively promotes, and provides false fronting for, fraudulent global scams
Even if Myerson’s game-theory models were correct the models & his work would simply have confirmed at best what was intuitively known – i.e. it would still not have met the most important discovery or improvement, or conferred greatest benefit on mankind, or been most worthy.
Myerson argued that the world’s problems were ‘deserving of our best efforts’ – but he refuses to engage transparently & honestly. Myerson remains silent.
The works of the writer, and submitted to the Nobel Foundation in 2006 and ongoing submissions, far exceed the works of the 2007 joint-winners and other contenders and fully complies with Nobel’s Terms of Will.
It is thus stated that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences grossly erred in not awarding the Nobel Prize to the writer.
(To date the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences have not responded to the proofs of the joint-winners defective theories as submitted by the writer in the previous paper; nor has Myerson, & other 2007 joint-winners, handed back their prize award.)
The points herein, to disprove Myerson’s game-theory models, are certainly not exhaustive – it becomes tedious having to draft an endless list of defects – not unlike spending hours listing all the defects of a mangled car when it is quite intuitive that it is a wreck, and of no value.
The request for an Appeal Process to review the awarding of the 2007 ‘Sveriges Bank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’ is reiterated.
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
www.cdadd.com;
(Under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC government’s oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by corporate & academic world’s.)
XDR = Extreme Democracy Resistant.
Emails:
Response to Myerson's 'Force & Restraint in Strategic Deterrence
'Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:33:13 +0000
Chris Addington
Nobel Prize Org (Comments) <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, Nobel Prize Org (Comments) <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, Nobel Prize Org (Info) <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, Nobel Prize Org (Technical) <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Roger Myerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden (Eva Papik)" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "Bank of Sweden (Stefan Ingves - Kerstin Alm)" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, "Bank of Sweden (Stefan Ingves)" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;
To Nobel Foundation & Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, , www.cdadd.com
Per Carlson, Roger Myerson, Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson
From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
Response to Roger Myerson’s ‘Force & Restraint in Strategic Deterrence.
Please see attached which gives further proofs that Myerson’s ‘practical application example’ of his (& Maskin & Hurwicz’s) game theory models do NOT meet the criteria of Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will.
I reiterate my request for an Appeal Process to review the awarding of the 2007 ‘Sveriges Bank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’
Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
___________________
To Nobel Foundation
CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, , www.cdadd.com
Per Carlson, Roger Myerson, Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson
From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
Re: reply to email from Per Carlson regarding the ‘Sveriges Bank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel’ (‘Nobel’ Economics Prize)
Per Carlson is entirely in error in stating that Alfred Nobel’s Will and its Terms are irrelevant to the Sveriges Bank Prize.
It is common knowledge & visibly proven at www.nobelprize.org that the Prize is associated with Alfred Nobel; the very name of the prize confirms the link sought by Sveriges Bank and the noble status that Alfred Nobel sought in the Prize he established.
It is not unlike arguing that one can put ‘Coca Cola’ onto a bottled drink but state that it is not Coca Cola – it is abuse of mark/name.
Ironically the erroneous statements by Per Carlson fall into the limited/restricted game-theory domain of the joint-winners. This will become clear when I circulate my next paper, currently being developed, disproving the validity of game-theory within the restricted domain that Myerson structures yet argues it is practicable within the wide real-world domain (see his ‘Force & Restraint’ paper). It is entirely wrong to do this.
It is abundantly clear that Sveriges Bank CANNOT be allowed to stipulate moral or any substantive or procedural conditions outside of the Terms of Nobel’s Will that would influence the status of the Prize, or the Foundation, in any manner of shape or form.
The Nobel Foundation has a duty to ensure that the noble status of Alfred Nobel’s Prize is not in any way diminished. Per Carlson imports that this is not so.
If it is argued that Sveriges Bank has set conditions beyond the import of Nobel’s Will then it needs to be rectified immediately.
BUT, then:-
- what criteria has the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences been applying to determine the SB Prize award? (It is also important to note that the foundation principles of the RSAS and Nobel’s Terms of Will are not incongruent. Or is it argued that they are?)
- what criteria does SB apply to their own research departments?
Does Sverige Bank have any other influences over the Nobel Foundation or RSAS or other linked institute?
It is also abundantly clear from my pioneering engineering work that the entire Economic Science base is distorted – and my claim that it stems from financial manipulations (not to exclude other influences) is well proven (see e.g.: CHAMSA Economics for Prosperity, witness SA’s Gordon Institute of Business Science funded by defrauded pension/investment monies, etc., etc., etc.).
However, Per Carlson does not dispute my proofs that the works by the joint-winners are defective from an economic science perspective (even if there might be mathematical correctness).
My request for the 2007 Prize award to be revoked and an Appeal Process for review of works for the 2007 prize is reiterated.
Further, in light of the proofs I have submitted and the import of statement by Per Carlson, that the Sveriges Bank Prize is not conforming to Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will, it would be correct for the joint-winners to politely tender their acceptance of my request and to hand-back the prize award, and for agreement to an Appeal review process to reconsider the Prize award based upon the import of Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will.
Yours Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Nobel
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:54:52 +0100
From: Per Carlson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;
Good morning
In an e-mail you have stated that this years prize in economics does not
meet Alfred Nobel's will.
Please note that there was no mentioning of a prize in economics in the
will. Thus there is no Nobel prize in economics and it is irrelevant to
discuss Nobel's will in relation to the economics prize. That prize is a
Swedish bank prize.
Per Carlson