> Efficiency: the ratio of the useful work
And then you merely link a proof that the efficiency is not 100%. That's effectively meaningless.
And then you merely link a proof that the efficiency is not 100%. That's effectively meaningless.
- You can't beat the market
- You can't beat the market without insider information
- You can't beat the market using only information about historical prices.
(Insert "approximately" and "by enough to be worth it" as appropriate)
1 is certainly false, 3 is probably true, 2 is controversial.
The paper is basically proving 3 can't always be true for actors with unlimited computational power, and without any "approximately" or "by enough to be worth it". It's a cute math trick, not something useful.