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....
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Finance and Society |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059599900000340/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797255819136335872 |
|---|---|
| author | Elie Ayache |
| author_facet | Elie Ayache |
| author_sort | Elie Ayache |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T22:11:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c6310bd066704f7589dd181c87c8d366 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2059-5999 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T22:11:54Z |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Finance and Society |
| spelling | doaj.art-c6310bd066704f7589dd181c87c8d3662024-03-20T08:20:15ZengCambridge University PressFinance and Society2059-59992016-01-01220521610.2218/finsoc.v2i2.1734Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical eventElie Ayache0ITO 33, FranceTimothy 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.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059599900000340/type/journal_articleAbstract probability theoryrandom samplerandom variablecontingencyderivatives market |
| spellingShingle | Elie Ayache Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event Finance and Society Abstract probability theory random sample random variable contingency derivatives market |
| title | 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_short | Response to Johnson: A random sample versus the radical event |
| title_sort | response to johnson a random sample versus the radical event |
| topic | Abstract probability theory random sample random variable contingency derivatives market |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2059599900000340/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT elieayache responsetojohnsonarandomsampleversustheradicalevent |