Talk:Unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics

message: I don't understand the article's second sentence. It is written "this catchphrase is meant to suggest that mathematical...". However, as a reader, I don't have a clue whether it is refering to unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics or to The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences  . Thanks for your clarification.
Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060913061500/http://www.cs.umaine.edu/%7Echaitin/lm.html to http://cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/lm.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "mathematical economics is unreasonably ineffective. Unreasonable, because the mathematical assumptions are economically unwarranted; ineffective because the mathematical formalisations imply non-constructive and uncomputable structures. A reasonable and effective mathematisation of economics entails Diophantine formalisms." This indicates that this person is completely illogical, and/or unable to understand English, despite choosing to write in English. The phrase, "unreasonably ineffective", means "so extremely ineffective that it is unreasonable that it is that ineffective". It does *not* mean "unreasonable and ineffective". It is the ineffectiveness that is unreasonable, not the mathematics. I propose cutting this quote from the article. Polar Apposite (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that especially in economics there are (economic) incentives to not give mathematicians enough information to make a fair, because mathematical, economic theory possible, because now someone who has more information tends to gain economically from that information unless someone other could prove (in court) that such information advantage is unfair. For this one would need an economic theory at least encompassing the case under review. As long as such a theory does not exist anybody with enough experience (which is probably the bank) can use any informational advantage to economic gain. They can even write (in their standard contracts) that you have to give them enough information to gain that advantage. And no court can do anything against that because no working economic theory exists. La Zy-Hart (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

text: On reflection, I take back my evaluation of the writer as "mediocre". I will just say that the quote is useless, and is mediocre (atrocious, actually) writing. The writer may have written some good stuff that I haven't seen. In fact, I think the quote is the only writing by this writer that I have seen. Polar Apposite (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless quote from a mediocre writer.