Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event
Timothy Johnson’s working hypothesis in his review of my latest book, The Medium of Contingency, is that I (as well as the ‘quants’ involved in the derivative pricing industry) do not understand the foundations of abstract probability theory. In this response, I show that this is not the case. On th...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Edinburgh
2016-12-01
|
| Series: | Finance and Society |
| Online Access: | http://financeandsociety.ed.ac.uk/article/view/1734 |
| id |
doaj-14fdac0bbd78498b9581c7bbad27b89f |
|---|---|
| record_format |
Article |
| spelling |
doaj-14fdac0bbd78498b9581c7bbad27b89f2020-11-25T02:32:03ZengUniversity of EdinburghFinance and Society2059-59992016-12-01222051610.2218/finsoc.v2i2.17341734Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical eventElie Ayache0ITO 33, ParisTimothy Johnson’s working hypothesis in his review of my latest book, The Medium of Contingency, is that I (as well as the ‘quants’ involved in the derivative pricing industry) do not understand the foundations of abstract probability theory. In this response, I show that this is not the case. On the contrary, rules and protocols which are common in the derivative pricing industry, the result of which can be an extension of abstract probability theory as it now stands, seem to elude Johnson. To address these failings, I provide theoretical reflections on probability theory and its formalisms.http://financeandsociety.ed.ac.uk/article/view/1734 |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
English |
| format |
Article |
| sources |
DOAJ |
| author |
Elie Ayache |
| spellingShingle |
Elie Ayache Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event Finance and Society |
| author_facet |
Elie Ayache |
| author_sort |
Elie Ayache |
| title |
Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event |
| title_short |
Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event |
| title_full |
Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event |
| title_fullStr |
Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event |
| title_sort |
response to johnson: a random sample versus the radical event |
| publisher |
University of Edinburgh |
| series |
Finance and Society |
| issn |
2059-5999 |
| publishDate |
2016-12-01 |
| description |
Timothy Johnson’s working hypothesis in his review of my latest book, The Medium of Contingency, is that I (as well as the ‘quants’ involved in the derivative pricing industry) do not understand the foundations of abstract probability theory. In this response, I show that this is not the case. On the contrary, rules and protocols which are common in the derivative pricing industry, the result of which can be an extension of abstract probability theory as it now stands, seem to elude Johnson. To address these failings, I provide theoretical reflections on probability theory and its formalisms. |
| url |
http://financeandsociety.ed.ac.uk/article/view/1734 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT elieayache responsetojohnsonarandomsampleversustheradicalevent |
| _version_ |
1724821938964004864 |