Talk:Mathematical economics

message: Hi Protonk, I'm not your GAN reviewer, but I can help you get past the "well-written" criterion.  Economics isn't my field, but I'm a fan of game theory and other applications of the field.  Feel free to disagree; please put any responses directly under the bullet point that you're responding to.  I don't generally cover images or endsections when I copyedit.  I'm doing a little more than I usually do for a WP:GAN article because I could easily see this article heading to FAC in the future.
Lead section:
* I removed the Mathematical problem link; I didn't think that page added anything to this article.
* What makes "What use is Economic Theory?" a reliable source?  Since most of economics these days has a heavy math component, it should be possible to find peer-reviewed papers to say what you want to say.
* There were two links to Model (economics); I removed the first link.
* I think it's likely your GAN reviewer will want a longer lead section.  See WP:LEAD.
Mathematical_economics#History:
* Flavors of English other than British should only use single-quotes when necessary inside of double-quotes; I'll make the changes.  (And I will generally make the case to use double-quotes in British English articles, too.)
* It's fine to use a quote to convey the consensus of the field, or the precise or witty language of the leaders of the field.  I didn't think the Sheila Dow quote fit that description, so I reworded it.
* I inserted commas before conjunctions joining two independent clauses.
* I inverted the order of "engineering problems" because of potential ambiguity, but please change it if I guessed wrong.
* I went with "Operations research, a newly formed discipline which influenced and was influenced by mathematical economics".   To say that it arose from economics is contradicted by the sources over at that article (and by my one operations research professor at college); it initially was concerned more with logistics and engineering.
* I added the word "paradigm", and having done that, I felt that "and an attempt to turn economics into a normal science" was probably redundant.  Let me know if there's some deeper concept from Kuhn's work that you want to work into the text.
Mathematical_economics#Application:
* I took out "According to the Editors, each is a non-specialist journal" because it seemed to be implied by "diverse" in the next sentence, but feel free to revert.  This is a judgment call, but if it were my article, I would give more than just saying "non-specialist" or "diverse"; I would list the subject areas accepted or solicited by the journals.
* This is a little beyond "copyediting", but the part of this article I would like to see expanded for GAN, and that would probably have to be expanded for FAC, is the sentence "Mathematical economics provides methods to model behavior in diverse, real world situations, including international climate agreements, reactions to changes in divorce laws, and pricing in the futures markets for commodities."  This seems to me to need a section to itself, justifying and illustrating that proposition.
* "mathematically competent professionals are needed in industry and government for dealing with the subject" seems ambiguous to me.  Do you mean that you probably can't get a job without the mathematical background, or that these people are or were in high demand at some time (specify the time)?
* "Graduate programs in economics and finance programs in graduate schools of management require strong undergraduate preparation in mathematics": the reference, a presentation by Sheila Dow, doesn't establish this (probably).  A few links to entrance requirements on university websites that are known for strong economics programs would work for me; even better would be some reliable source that summarizes this information.
* "empirical interpretation" is not a common phrase (12k Google hits).  Is that the way your sources describe it, or did they say "interpretation of empirical data"?
* I think the "Warwick Department of Economics" probably won't qualify as a reliable source, and the sentence will have to go.  If it does qualify, then you want to change the word "recent" to "in 2008".  But a departmental study could be used to answer questions about what that university is looking for in applicants.
Mathematical_economics#Criticism of mathematical economics
* Looks good.
Mathematical_economics#Mathematical economics applications and the section after:
*One of the style guidelines specifically mentioned at WP:Good article criteria is WP:Embedded list; check it out.  Raw lists (including in See also) can be very useful in B-class articles by letting everyone know which other articles to look at; material often flows between articles.  When you get up to the GA level of maturity, you're supposed to be largely finished with this process of shifting information in and out of this article, and most wikilinks should be either discarded or worked into the proper section, accompanied by context.  When you really do want a list, it's better if the list looks more like the lists in WP:Embedded list, or sometimes lists work best when they're converted into tabular form.
Okay that's it.  Best of luck with your review, and I'll be happy to answer questions.  I enjoyed learning more about the subject. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *thanks for the questions and updates.  I just got back from being out of town, so I'll try to answer these questions more fully later tonight or tomorrow.  Thank you for your help and attention to detail. :) Protonk (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the continuing help.  I'll try to gin something up in inkscape, but I can't think of a good visual for modern mathematical economic concepts.  Take the Edgeworth box portrayed in the article.  The concept there works fine with more than two actors, but the box becomes vectors in Rn space.  Maybe the black-scholes smile? Protonk (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the "Heat equation, to which the Black–Scholes PDE can be transformed." Wikipedia economics articles have very few images, I see, but math articles have tons of 2-D and 3-D representations. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really good idea.  I just picked up a book on partial differential equations and the heat equation is the first thing discussed. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Very nice work.  I'm not good with advice on images, but it seems to me that a couple more images that should be easy to find might help nail the WP:GAN.  You might illustrate your sentence "Much of classical economics can be presented in simple geometric terms or elementary mathematical notation" with a simple supply-demand curve, contrasted with some more intricate 3-D plot.  If that seems too dry, most of the articles on notable economists have pictures you could borrow. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the continuing help.  I'll try to gin something up in inkscape, but I can't think of a good visual for modern mathematical economic concepts.  Take the Edgeworth box portrayed in the article.  The concept there works fine with more than two actors, but the box becomes vectors in Rn space.  Maybe the black-scholes smile? Protonk (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the "Heat equation, to which the Black–Scholes PDE can be transformed." Wikipedia economics articles have very few images, I see, but math articles have tons of 2-D and 3-D representations. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really good idea.  I just picked up a book on partial differential equations and the heat equation is the first thing discussed. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More

message: I see what you mean about that.  I'm going to try and flesh out the early 20th century history bit first and then I'll try to come up with a short blurb for each economist on the list (and prune as necessary). Protonk (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of economists 

message: On the advice of Jay Henry, I've checked out a few mathematical economics textbooks to get a feel for the basic structure of a course on the matter.
This is from:
*
I:Prolegomena
 1. Cournot, Walras and Edgeworth
II:The founding Years (1900-1949)
 2. Pareto and General equlibrium
 3. Classical General equilibrium
 4. Wald and existence proofs
 5. Early game theory
 6. Early multi-sectoral growth
 7. Dynamic modeling
 8. Iring Fischer and Interest theory
 9. Widening General Equilibrium Theory
 10. Applied general equilibirum
III: Extensions, Fitness and formalism (1950 on)
 11. Walras cum Leontief
 12. From classical to modern analysis
 13. Linear programming and extensions
 14. Consumer's analysis
 15. Firm's analysis
 16. General competitive equlibrium
 17. Stability and more
 18. Regular economics
 ... it continues for a while
I think this is a little helpful, insofar as it points to some good ways to break the article history, applications and examples down.  Nicola's breakdown is by no means the only one but I picked his book specifically because it made an attempt at grounding the chapters in history.  Perhaps a new layout could be:
   * 1 History
          o 1.1 Marginalists and the roots of neoclassical economics
          o 1.2 General equilibrium and the interwar years
          o 1.3 Emergence of modern mathematical economics
            o 1.3.1 Econometrics
    * 2 Application
          o 2.1 Early Models of competition
            o 2.1.1 Perfect competition
            o 2.1.2 Monopoly
            o 2.1.3 Duopoly
          o 2.2 Models of equilibrium
            o 2.2.1 Walrassian equilibrium
            o 2.2.2 IS/LM
          o 2.3 Models of choice
            o 2.3.1 Game theory and oligopoly
            o 2.3.2 Public choice
          o 2.4 The theory of the firm
    * 3 Relationship to the discipline as a whole
          o 3.1 Mathematical economics as methodology
          o 3.2 Mathematical finance
          o 3.2 Views from inside and outside the professon (maybe, if I can find stuff)
    * 4 Criticism of mathematical economics
    * 5 Mathematical economists
          o 5.1 19th century
          o 5.2 20th century
    * 6 See also
    * 7 Notes
    * 8 External links
Thoughts?
: Looking good. In my opinion, a nice structure might start by following the one included in the Historical Introduction of the Elsevier's Handbook of mathematical economics (written by Arrow and Intriligator, Vol. 1, p. 1): 
   * 1 History
          o 1.1 The calculus-based marginalist period (1838-1947)
          o 1.2 The set-theoretic/linear models period (1948-1960)
          o 1.3 The current period of integration (1961-1984)
:OK, maybe section 1.3 should not be named "current" since the quoted handbook was published in 1984! Nonetheless, whatever the title of that section be, I suggest to include at least these topics there: The theory of diversifiable risk sharing (as in Karl Borch's and Christian Gollier's work); and Social choice theory (as in Sen's work).
:In section 1.2, an "Arrow-Debreu Model" subsection would be useful, since it has had a tremendous impact on microeconomic methodology over the last decades.
: I agree with the mathematical economists section. French economist Maurice Allais deserves a special spot, of course.
: Finally, I just want to say that the whole econometrics/mathematical economics marriage seems ackward to me... sure, it has a historical meaning, but nowadays there are very few mathematical economists who are profficient at econometrics and viceversa.--Forich (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: A question has been raised about the distinction between mathematical economics and econometrics in this article.  I originally did not distinguish between the two but started to due to some sources making the distinction.  What comes immediately to mind is the Stigler article ().  He notes a distinction between Econometrica and other mathematical economics journals and relates some stories about Keynes and other journal editors refusing to publish material that would today be considered econometrics in the AER and QJE.  I'll see which other sources cited here distinguish between econometrics and mathematical economics. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing the matter up.  In further support of the distinction, there is JEL: C6 (under JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories).  It lists some mathematical methods as applied to non-game-theory econ applications of "mathematical methods."   Math methods are distinguished from other subcategories under "econometric methods."  The JEL usages suggest at least the convenience of distingushing math econ and econometrics.   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: *Oh, also Oskar R. Lange makes this split explicit in his review of economic modeling here. Protonk (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been awhile, but let me extend congrats on well-deserved GA outcome.  I did not press the point earlier, but there is a distinction in usage between 'mathematical economics' & 'econometrics'. The unwary reader might get the impression econometrics is a proper subset of math econ.  Textbooks on the respective subjects indicate otherwise.  Debreu's "mathemtatical economics" article in The New Palgrave does not even mention econometrics.  It's true that Econometrica has always published a lot of math econ articles (in addition to articles on econometrics). Still, usage of the 2 terms is distinct. It is also reflected in the JEL codes as indicated above and in hierarchical The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics#Subject Index (1987) where the articles are their respective headings. That subsection is ine history section of the article.  There's really no need to go into the history of econometrics as such (unless it is merely  to mention their co-development.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Econometrics 

message: I've withdrawn the GAN as I've discovered that the scope of the article doesn't come close to covering the scope of the subject.  I'll expand it (as best I can) in the next week or so to look like the structure seen above.  Any help is much appreciated.  Also, anyone that can get Economic Methodology by Dow would be a help, as my interlibrary request for it got denied.  Don't they KNOW I need to edit wikipedia?! Protonk (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update, I've started a draft page, User talk:Protonk/Draft of mathematical economics for broad reworking of the history and applications sections.  Changes are welcome there but it is prone to change rapidly. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawn GAN 

message: Here are a few general sources that might be helpful in addition to those already in the article. 
For a classic discussion: 
F.Y. Edgeworth (2008), "mathematical methods in political economy," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition,  earlier (with "method" in the title) at (1987) The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics , v. 3, pp. 404-05, and (1987) Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy 
For later treatment:
Gerard Debreu (2008),  "mathematical economics,"  (Abstract.) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition.  
The JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories list some mathematical methods as applied to  non-game-theory applications under  JEL: C6.  Game theory has its own subbategories.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General sources 

message: If you are interested in heading to A-class or FAC with this one, let me know, I'd love to help. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Waiting works for me, A-class works for me.  I've got 0.7 stuff til Oct 20. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, there is currently no FA general-field article in Econ. The only current general-field WP:Good article-rated in Econ is here per  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Economics_and_business -- a stunning achievement -- with most of the non-minor Edits due to Protonk, which took  the article from here to here (that is, shortly after GA status).  Protonk continued making careful, not-infrequent Edits thereafter. P's last 1.5 sentences above evince an attitude that doubtless contributed to the success of the outcome. -- Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Above are updated & added links, an added last phrase, and  2 sentences. --14:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In mathematical economics, GA status was awarded yesterday to the Shapley–Folkman lemma, which describes the head-aches of non-convex sets, largely motivated by economic applications.  Editing (especially copy editing) would be welcome! Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats on the GA 

message: Is it just me, or does the following paragraph fail to relate to the topic: 
Around the end of the 19th century, the effort to place mathematics on secure logical foundations reached its most ambitious heights with the publication of Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead. In 1918, David Hilbert continued the call for a complete axiomatic system in mathematics.[9]. Although the ultimate goal of a complete, consistent and self-contained mathematical system was ultimately shown by Godel to be unachievable, economists continue to regard mathematical rigor as a desirable objective.
I think it should be removed 70.61.48.113 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Paragraph 

message: The "criticism" of Hayek can stay (although one wonders whether engineers have to suffer through such criticism of the role of calculus in their practices). 
Most of the noted criticisms of mathematical economics are not criticisms of mathematical economics per se. They are rather criticisms of economics, as neglecting empirical theory construction and testing. Those criticisms should be moved off. 
Could somebody find better criticisms of economics? 
*Keynes's decadent sophistry shows the worst aspects of his Brittish upper-class breeding and public-school education.
*Heilbroner was a famous para-economist, but a half-coherent quote in an interview doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. 
For example, Martin Shubik wrote an entertaining criticism of microeconomics and the Oskar Morgenstern wrote a much sharper critique of actually existing economics in the 1970s. There was an American Economic Association blue-ribbon commission (c. 1993)that complained that grad programs rivaled McDonald's in their standardization, and rivaled metaphysical academies in their divorce from practice. Such criticisms  would better serve the public than Keynes's snobbery and Heilbroner's dotage.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of mathematical economics — or of non-empirical economics? 

message: Dr. Krawczyk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Krawczyk has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference 1:  J.B. Krawczyk and K.L. Judd. A NOTE ON DETERMINING VIABLE ECONOMIC STATES IN A DYNAMIC MODEL OF TAXATION. Macroeconomic Dynamics, available on CJO2015. doi:10.1017/S1365100514000868. 
*Reference 2:  Contreras, J., J. B. Krawczyk, and J. Zuccollo. "Economics of collective monitoring: a study of environmentally constrained electricity generators." Computational Management Science (2015): 1-21. 
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Krawczyk's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Mathematical economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.fcs.edu.uy/multi/phes/mirowski_math_econ_JEP.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126115547/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Economics/MicroeconomicTheory/?view=usa to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Economics/MicroeconomicTheory/?view=usa&ci=9780195073409
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126115547/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Economics/MicroeconomicTheory/?view=usa to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Economics/MicroeconomicTheory/?view=usa&sf=toc&ci=9780195073409
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309003925/http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=7107596&q=&uid=788819967&setcookie=yes to http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=7107596&q=&uid=788819967&setcookie=yes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505140924/http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/asia/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521872829 to http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/asia/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521872829
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916032346/http://johnstachurski.net/book/book.html to http://johnstachurski.net/book/book.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Como autorevisor caso tu interesses em traduzir e botar para EAB seria grato por isso. att 2804:14C:5BB1:8AF2:8DE1:61A8:EFA6:A1C2 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Ping|Luizpuodzius}} 

message: I have a background in math and not economics. The example in this article has cool math, but the function choices are made up, the constant choices are made up, and its conclusion is in complete disagreement with the empirical reality of corporate tax cuts and wage growth in the United States over the last 50 years. Does no one see a problem with this? Is the purpose of Wikipedia to provide truthful knowledge to the public, or to provide justification for crap policies to benefit corporations? Dudewaldo4 (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of Wikipedia