> On the first count, you're mistaken because there's no reason to assume that the distribution is symmetric.
First, I never said that, and second, that assumption isn't necessary -- the location of the mean won't change, and the mean is the thing you would need to beat, not the median. The reason is that market indices measure the mean (the sum of all the values divided by the count of values), not the median (the midpoint between the highest and lowest value).
> On the second count, that's like saying that math is the foundation of computing, and so the two are indistinguishable.
And? I invite you to argue that it's not so. Computers do what they do solely on mathematical and logical principles. Some would argue that that represents a drawback, hence experiments with things like fuzzy logic. But even fuzzy logic is deterministic and logical, it's just sometimes closer to messy reality. But all of computer science, and computer operations, are strictly logical.
> ... klodolph is correct that the two are different ...
Computer science and mathematics? Only someone unfamiliar with computer science would make that claim. Computer science is applied mathematics.
> ... so you should acknowledge the minor correction ...
Are you familiar with the idea that, if you make an argument, the burden is yours to produce evidence for it? Computer science is applied mathematics.
> Buffet suggests (and advocates) an alternative (his #5) that is NOT fully respectful of the efficient market hypothesis.
But that's not the topic. Whether the EMH is reflected in the real market or not, the issue is whether someone can consistently beat the market averages for reasons other than chance. These are separate, independent topics.
> Buffet claims that there may or may not exist investors who have superior (or inferior) skill, but that in MOST cases the results are due to luck, and "skilled" investors are mostly indistinguishable from lucky investors. Although I have not seen you agree or disagree with this claim ...
The reason I haven't either agreed or disagreed is because there's no way to establish it scientifically, with evidence. So I disagree that Buffett can make the case, and for the same reason, I can't make the case either. That leaves us with the null hypothesis -- without evidence, the thesis is assumed to be false.
> More generally, did you notice that your top-level comment was basically saying "Warren Buffet is wrong about this aspect of investing"?
If you invent quotes for people, we won't get anywhere. I can only say that Buffett can't make his case, and I have said that. That leaves us with the default scientific position -- the null hypothesis. Without evidence, an assumption that a thesis is false.
> ... some of the minor details of your points are technically wrong or confusing ...
First, I never said that, and second, that assumption isn't necessary -- the location of the mean won't change, and the mean is the thing you would need to beat, not the median. The reason is that market indices measure the mean (the sum of all the values divided by the count of values), not the median (the midpoint between the highest and lowest value).
> On the second count, that's like saying that math is the foundation of computing, and so the two are indistinguishable.
And? I invite you to argue that it's not so. Computers do what they do solely on mathematical and logical principles. Some would argue that that represents a drawback, hence experiments with things like fuzzy logic. But even fuzzy logic is deterministic and logical, it's just sometimes closer to messy reality. But all of computer science, and computer operations, are strictly logical.
> ... klodolph is correct that the two are different ...
Computer science and mathematics? Only someone unfamiliar with computer science would make that claim. Computer science is applied mathematics.
> ... so you should acknowledge the minor correction ...
Are you familiar with the idea that, if you make an argument, the burden is yours to produce evidence for it? Computer science is applied mathematics.
> Buffet suggests (and advocates) an alternative (his #5) that is NOT fully respectful of the efficient market hypothesis.
But that's not the topic. Whether the EMH is reflected in the real market or not, the issue is whether someone can consistently beat the market averages for reasons other than chance. These are separate, independent topics.
> Buffet claims that there may or may not exist investors who have superior (or inferior) skill, but that in MOST cases the results are due to luck, and "skilled" investors are mostly indistinguishable from lucky investors. Although I have not seen you agree or disagree with this claim ...
The reason I haven't either agreed or disagreed is because there's no way to establish it scientifically, with evidence. So I disagree that Buffett can make the case, and for the same reason, I can't make the case either. That leaves us with the null hypothesis -- without evidence, the thesis is assumed to be false.
> More generally, did you notice that your top-level comment was basically saying "Warren Buffet is wrong about this aspect of investing"?
If you invent quotes for people, we won't get anywhere. I can only say that Buffett can't make his case, and I have said that. That leaves us with the default scientific position -- the null hypothesis. Without evidence, an assumption that a thesis is false.
> ... some of the minor details of your points are technically wrong or confusing ...
Locate one, but be prepared to offer evidence.