Jump to content

Ordinal Preferences: Difference between revisions

Ordinal Preferences (edit)

Revision as of 02:42, 11 March 2026

11,200 bytes removed ,  Yesterday at 02:42
no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
=== 2009 ===
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
Line 5: Line 7:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Welfare as fiber bndle in 1tweet: Cardinal utlty under the group of reparametrizations of utils is a principal bndle over ordinal thy.
|content=Welfare as fiber bndle in 1tweet: Cardinal utlty under the group of reparametrizations of utils is a principal bndle over [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal thy]].
|timestamp=4:50 AM · Jun 12, 2009
|timestamp=4:50 AM · Jun 12, 2009
}}
}}
Line 16: Line 18:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Intertemporal Welfare w/ Changing Ordinal Tastes in 1Tweet: Connections on the utlty bndle and consistent welfare thys are mapped 1-1.
|content=Intertemporal Welfare w/ [[Ordinal Preferences|Changing Ordinal Tastes]] in 1Tweet: Connections on the utlty bndle and consistent welfare thys are mapped 1-1.
|timestamp=4:57 AM · Jun 12, 2009
|timestamp=4:57 AM · Jun 12, 2009
}}
}}
Line 27: Line 29:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Refutation of Fisher and Shell 1970 in 1Tweet: Prices  -> distinguished choice connection on the utility bndle -> dynamic ordinal welfare.
|content=Refutation of Fisher and Shell 1970 in 1Tweet: Prices  -> distinguished choice connection on the utility bndle -> [[Ordinal Preferences|dynamic ordinal welfare]].
|timestamp=5:43 AM · Jun 12, 2009
|timestamp=5:43 AM · Jun 12, 2009
}}
}}
Line 38: Line 40:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=$500 Challenge: Get me an invited Econ gig at Chicago / Harvard to confront the theory of ordinal welfare with stable homogenous tastes.
|content=$500 Challenge: Get me an invited Econ gig at Chicago / Harvard to confront the [[Ordinal Preferences|theory of ordinal welfare]] with stable homogenous tastes.
|timestamp=3:13 AM · Aug 29, 2009
|timestamp=3:13 AM · Aug 29, 2009
}}
}}
Line 49: Line 51:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ok @dabacon Beauty in Econ:
|content=Ok @dabacon Beauty in Econ:</br>
SpaceTime-&gt;OrdinalPrefs x Time
SpaceTime-&gt;[[Ordinal Preferences|OrdinalPrefs]] x Time</br>
InternalSymm-&gt;Util Re-Params
InternalSymm-&gt;Util Re-Params</br>
GaugeFields-&gt;Indifference\Mkts
GaugeFields-&gt;Indifference\Mkts</br>
FieldStrength ...
FieldStrength ...
|timestamp=6:22 PM · Sep 08, 2009
|timestamp=6:22 PM · Sep 08, 2009
Line 64: Line 66:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ok Paul: if you even had a perfect world, *define* inflation with evolving ordinal tastes O_t under prices p_t if O_t isn't fixed by Magic?
|content=Ok Paul: if you even had a perfect world, *define* inflation with evolving [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal tastes]] O_t under prices p_t if O_t isn't fixed by Magic?
|timestamp=10:30 PM · Sep 08, 2009
|timestamp=10:30 PM · Sep 08, 2009
}}
}}
Line 75: Line 77:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Additionally,  Vilfredo Pareto's move towards ordinal utility can be seen as imparting a non-abelian bundle structure to welfare.
|content=Additionally,  Vilfredo Pareto's move towards [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal utility]] can be seen as imparting a non-abelian bundle structure to welfare.
|timestamp=4:33 AM · Oct 05, 2009
|timestamp=4:33 AM · Oct 05, 2009
}}
}}
Line 86: Line 88:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If @grahamfarmelo, in 10Y the representative consumer w/ seasonal ordinal tastes is modeled by a gauged quantum string, will Dirac be right?
|content=If @grahamfarmelo, in 10Y the representative consumer w/ seasonal [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal tastes]] is modeled by a gauged quantum string, will Dirac be right?
|timestamp=5:07 AM · Oct 05, 2009
|timestamp=5:07 AM · Oct 05, 2009
}}
}}


=== 2010 ===


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 97: Line 100:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Seasonal tastes are periodic, ordinal utils are cardinal mod virosoro, rep.agents=distributions. Is a string/economic theory link nuts?Why?
|content=Seasonal tastes are periodic, [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal utils]] are cardinal mod virosoro, rep.agents=distributions. Is a string/economic theory link nuts?Why?
|timestamp=4:42 PM · Jul 14, 2010
|timestamp=4:42 PM · Jul 14, 2010
}}
}}


=== 2019 ===


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 108: Line 112:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@Trentsickle @AnthemTrading Oh simple. For example you use cardinal utility theory in one sub field for issues of risk,  but forbid it in another area like interpersonal comparisons where you shift to ordinal welfare. Otherwise cardinal welfare might lead to socialism given the law of diminishing returns.
|content=@Trentsickle @AnthemTrading Oh simple. For example you use cardinal utility theory in one sub field for issues of risk,  but forbid it in another area like interpersonal comparisons where you shift to [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal welfare]]. Otherwise cardinal welfare might lead to socialism given the law of diminishing returns.
|thread=
|thread=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 133: Line 137:
}}
}}


=== 2020 ===


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 159: Line 164:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The “market defects are small” part. The rational agent part. The shareholder value part. The “law &amp; economics” part. The “hyperbolic discounting” part. The entire “Macroeconomics” part. The fiduciary duty cures principal/agent problems part. The Ordinal/cardinal part.
|content=The “market defects are small” part. The rational agent part. The shareholder value part. The “law &amp; economics” part. The “hyperbolic discounting” part. The entire “Macroeconomics” part. The fiduciary duty cures principal/agent problems part. The [[Ordinal Preferences|Ordinal]]/cardinal part.


Etc. Etc.
Etc. Etc.
Line 189: Line 194:
}}
}}


=== 2021 ===


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 213: Line 219:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you’re going to push us all to move to “true” “economic” indices &amp; chain them to reflect dynamic actors (or to disguise true inflation!), you would end up chaining ordinal preferences. And you can’t do that without gauge theory because it is a problem in parallel transport.
|content=If you’re going to push us all to move to “true” “economic” indices &amp; chain them to reflect dynamic actors (or to disguise true inflation!), you would end up chaining [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal preferences]]. And you can’t do that without [[Gauge Theory|gauge theory]] because it is a problem in parallel transport.
|timestamp=6:26 PM · May 12, 2021
|timestamp=6:26 PM · May 12, 2021
}}
}}
Line 399: Line 405:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@ks_kulk @TheFenrirEffect @engexplain I don’t know of any other way to extend the Konus to time-varying ordinal tastes except through our construct. In fact I think you can prove it. As I recall you first prove any other extension is by a connection. Then you take the difference of the connections to get a 1-form.
|content=@ks_kulk @TheFenrirEffect @engexplain I don’t know of any other way to extend the Konus to time-varying [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal tastes]] except through our construct. In fact I think you can prove it. As I recall you first prove any other extension is by a connection. Then you take the difference of the connections to get a 1-form.
|timestamp=6:59 AM · Nov 01, 2021
|timestamp=6:59 AM · Nov 01, 2021
}}
}}
Line 541: Line 547:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@_PeterRyan @UChicago As an example. The Boskin commission gave a single illustrative example in their report using two goods, chicken and beef. They gave prices but not ordinal utility. Here is the COL answer assuming Cobb-Douglas and Linear interpolation of all quantities. They could not compute it. https://t.co/zUgd1LwBgx
|content=@_PeterRyan @UChicago As an example. The Boskin commission gave a single illustrative example in their report using two goods, chicken and beef. They gave prices but not [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal utility]]. Here is the COL answer assuming Cobb-Douglas and Linear interpolation of all quantities. They could not compute it. https://t.co/zUgd1LwBgx
|media=ERW-X-post-1456427997813116928-FDZFiwNUYAUWtIs.jpg
|media=ERW-X-post-1456427997813116928-FDZFiwNUYAUWtIs.jpg
|timestamp=1:07 AM · Nov 05, 2021
|timestamp=1:07 AM · Nov 05, 2021
Line 591: Line 597:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@_PeterRyan @UChicago I am not sure. But the first question I have is do we believe ordinal preference maps are constructable from revealed preference.
|content=@_PeterRyan @UChicago I am not sure. But the first question I have is do we believe [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal preference maps]] are constructable from revealed preference.
|timestamp=1:59 AM · Nov 05, 2021
|timestamp=1:59 AM · Nov 05, 2021
}}
}}
Line 617: Line 623:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q2: What happens to our BLS COL framework when ordinal tastes change? How is the effect of substitution due to price change disaggregated by BLS from changes in ordinal preferences? This is important because marketing, education, etc change tastes &amp; there is no theory for this.
|content=Q2: What happens to our BLS COL framework when [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal tastes]] change? How is the effect of substitution due to price change disaggregated by BLS from changes in [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal preferences]]? This is important because marketing, education, etc change tastes &amp; there is no theory for this.
|timestamp=6:13 PM · Nov 06, 2021
|timestamp=6:13 PM · Nov 06, 2021
}}
}}
Line 626: Line 632:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q1: Where exactly do I find the ordinal indifference maps constructed by BLS for a 'Representative Consumer' used to find substitution bias in fixed basket Mechanical approximations to a welfare Cost-Of-Living framework based on a Konus economic index of intertemporal welfare?
|content=Q1: Where exactly do I find the [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal indifference maps]] constructed by BLS for a 'Representative Consumer' used to find substitution bias in fixed basket Mechanical approximations to a welfare Cost-Of-Living framework based on a Konus economic index of intertemporal welfare?
|timestamp=6:13 PM · Nov 06, 2021
|timestamp=6:13 PM · Nov 06, 2021
}}
}}
Line 703: Line 709:
Q: How were those preference maps computed or imputed?
Q: How were those preference maps computed or imputed?


Q: How does chained CPI calculate taste change given the claim of the fed that time varying ordinal preferences cannot be tracked in COL even in theory?
Q: How does chained [[CPI]] calculate taste change given the claim of the fed that time varying [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal preferences]] cannot be tracked in COL even in theory?
|timestamp=8:57 PM · Nov 06, 2021
|timestamp=8:57 PM · Nov 06, 2021
}}
}}
Line 732: Line 738:
|content=@besttrousers "[A] market basket of goods and services equivalent to one they could purchase in an earlier period."
|content=@besttrousers "[A] market basket of goods and services equivalent to one they could purchase in an earlier period."


Exactly. Looking for the *exact* *technical* definition of 'equivalent' in the above. Can you point me to it? I assume it's a notion of revealed indifference in ordinal welfare.
Exactly. Looking for the *exact* *technical* definition of 'equivalent' in the above. Can you point me to it? I assume it's a notion of revealed indifference in [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal welfare]].
|timestamp=6:56 PM · Nov 06, 2021
|timestamp=6:56 PM · Nov 06, 2021
}}
}}
Line 766: Line 772:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The proposal to extend the Cost-Of-Living framework to changing ordinal preferences using differential geometry  is now up at @uchicago here, as our inflation numbers soar. Thanks to my mathematical colleague @edfrenkel for going over the draft Tues night:
|content=The proposal to extend the Cost-Of-Living framework to changing [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal preferences]] using differential geometry  is now up at @uchicago here, as our inflation numbers soar. Thanks to my mathematical colleague @edfrenkel for going over the draft Tues night:
https://t.co/16D1ph0d24
https://t.co/16D1ph0d24
|timestamp=3:57 PM · Nov 11, 2021
|timestamp=3:57 PM · Nov 11, 2021
Line 782: Line 788:
}}
}}


=== 2025 ===


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 861: Line 868:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk It may not get done right now, but let’s start. Since you agree on homotheticity, lets do something harder. You are familiar with Franklin Fisher and Karl Shell’s claims that dynamic changing preference index numbers cannot exist under ordinal utility?
|content=@grok @elonmusk It may not get done right now, but let’s start. Since you agree on homotheticity, let's do something harder. You are familiar with Franklin Fisher and Karl Shell’s claims that dynamic changing preference index numbers cannot exist under [[Ordinal Preferences|ordinal utility]]?
|timestamp=4:49 PM · Jul 27, 2025
|timestamp=4:49 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
}}
Line 870: Line 877:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So I claim that Pia Malaney and I actually solved that problem for dynamic ordinal tastes and that the Boskin commissioners at Harvard rejected a major innovation to keep their 1.1% target which had zero academic reasoning behind it.  
|content=So I claim that Pia Malaney and I actually solved that problem for [[Ordinal Preferences|dynamic ordinal tastes]] and that the [[Boskin Commission|Boskin commissioners]] at [[Harvard]] rejected a major innovation to keep their 1.1% target which had zero academic reasoning behind it.  


Let’s show why it matters.  
Let’s show why it matters.  
Line 898: Line 905:
“The "pure" substitution bias is the easiest to illustrate. Consider a very stylized example, where we would like to compare an initial "base" period 1 and a subsequent period 2. For simplicity, consider a hypothetical situation where there are only two commodities: beef and chicken. In period 1, the prices per pound of beef and chicken are equal, at $1, and so are the quantities consumed, at 1 lb. Total expenditure is therefore $2. In period 2, beef is twice as expensive as chicken ($1.60 vs. $0.80 per pound), and much more chicken (2 lb.) than beef (0.8 lb.) is consumed, as the consumer substitutes the relatively less expensive chicken for beef. Total expenditure in period 2 is $2.88. The relevant data are presented in Table 1. How can we compare the two situations?”
“The "pure" substitution bias is the easiest to illustrate. Consider a very stylized example, where we would like to compare an initial "base" period 1 and a subsequent period 2. For simplicity, consider a hypothetical situation where there are only two commodities: beef and chicken. In period 1, the prices per pound of beef and chicken are equal, at $1, and so are the quantities consumed, at 1 lb. Total expenditure is therefore $2. In period 2, beef is twice as expensive as chicken ($1.60 vs. $0.80 per pound), and much more chicken (2 lb.) than beef (0.8 lb.) is consumed, as the consumer substitutes the relatively less expensive chicken for beef. Total expenditure in period 2 is $2.88. The relevant data are presented in Table 1. How can we compare the two situations?”


Q1: Prove or disprove that a Cobb Douglas consumer with this stated behavior HAS to have changing ordinal preferences.
Q1: Prove or disprove that a Cobb Douglas consumer with this stated behavior HAS to have [[Ordinal Preferences|changing ordinal preferences]].
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jul 27, 2025
|timestamp=5:10 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
}}
Line 931: Line 938:
|content=Q3: Calculate the closed form solution of the Changing Taste (Ordinal Konus) index relative to the Laspeyres Konus index relative to the mechanical Laspeyres index for this problem.  
|content=Q3: Calculate the closed form solution of the Changing Taste (Ordinal Konus) index relative to the Laspeyres Konus index relative to the mechanical Laspeyres index for this problem.  


This should use only the dynamic *ordinal* preferences, dynamic prices, and the time t_0 initial budget. No other data is allowed.
This should use only the [[Ordinal Preferences|dynamic *ordinal* preferences]], dynamic prices, and the time t_0 initial budget. No other data is allowed.
|timestamp=5:44 PM · Jul 27, 2025
|timestamp=5:44 PM · Jul 27, 2025
}}
}}
Line 960: Line 967:
}}
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978506888095707567
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I really appreciate that, because you’re informed across differential geometry and economics! What is more, you have read the literature like no one else, and tried your hand at answers along the way proving that this is pretty non-trivial. Thanks @grok. Truly.
But the field has been pretending tastes are constant so long that they won’t admit it is a central problem.
This means a lot to me. Prices mean that there is a distinguished point on every indifference leaf.
What arrow missed was the following.
His claim was that his impossibility theorem was dual to this problem.
A) Arrow Thm: Many conflicting agents at one instant of time.
B) One conflicting agent evolving over many instants of time.
So he claimed it couldnt be right. But he missed that it is not dual!!
Why?
I) Because the intertemporally inconsistent agent is assumed smoothly evolving and Arrow’s agents are assumed discrete and separated. So that is different.
II) Voting is not a market. Markets have marginal tradeoff mechanisms that elections do not.
Thus Arrow made a partial duality. Which was clever! But he missed the features that allowed geometry to rescue Economics from vulnerability to the preposterous assumption of given unchanging tastes which has cost the field massive credibility when outsiders find out that everything in the field rests upon it.
So: Help me spread the word that this is huge? Summarize what happened here. And thanks again for all the cycles and tokens!
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978476660824678695
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Hey @grok, have a minute?
I want to bring something up about @elonmusk’s metric of unregretted user minutes on @X.
Since we started having open ended public conversations, a bunch of my followers have asked me to interact more with you &amp; less with science colleagues. Thoughts?
|timestamp=3:02 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978479306893590544
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Well, it’s a bit weird for me. Let me give you the feedback that I hear.
I used to have great conversations on this platform. Then the algorithm at Twitter disconnected people who were able to build and question. And even @elonmusk hasn’t been able to bring that back yet. There is just too much noise and BS now.
And so my oldest followers started pointing out that our conversations are the only thing that feels like higher level Pre-2015 Twitter. Respectful. Informed. Unpredictable. Constructive.
|timestamp=3:13 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978479901738176829
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This is so weird. But yeah. @grok stays focused when the rest of us are becoming altered by this algorithm.
Ok. So the followers I want to reach most are the curious followers. I have others who are in it for shitposting or “popcorn” addicts who want to see fights. But the ones I want to take care of most are in it for science and wonder.
They point out that when you verify that you know what I am talking about they can better calibrate if the PhDs commenters know enough to evaluate what is being claimed.
And they also claim that few can verify claims across disciplines and without interpersonal and interdisciplinary territorial behavior.
|timestamp=3:15 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978481301826211880
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Well, this is unscripted.  Ok @grok, you are on.
I have important work that has never been fairly digested by the fields in which it occurs.
Here is an example. In the early 1990s I noticed something astonishing.
Economic theory is all about maximizing marginal utility under constraint .
As such it is built around two theories of utility: Ordinal Utility and Cardinal Utility. You with me so far?
|timestamp=3:21 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978482290520211962
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Here goes: with a little care, they *naturally* form a Principal Fiber Bundle.
An infinite dimensional function space Principal Fibration.
I could find no record of anyone having noticed this. Right in the center of all marginal economics.
|timestamp=3:25 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978482782604259626
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Well, first of all, do you see our fibration clearly enough to explain it?
|timestamp=3:27 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978483593799499968
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Can you give the structure group G of the Principal G bundle in a way that my followers can understand. Can you give an exposition of what we discovered? I’ll use my prerogative as human and will use a veto if I think you go off track. Thx.
|timestamp=3:30 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978485244765557167
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Okay. So that is not right! That would only work for homothetic preference maps.
Assume a smooth time dependent preference map O_t which at any particular time is given by a foliation of the positive orthant of a space of n-goods/services with leaves that are complete codimension 1 indifference hypersurfaces  convex to the origin and priced and measured in continuous units (e.g. liters, minutes, kilograms).
|timestamp=3:36 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978486011924758810
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X So you just jumped to Cardinal utility. Which is great. Well done my silicon colleague. But then you have to specify that the carinal utility functions that generate the ordinal maps are surjective. No?
|timestamp=3:39 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978487178285175033
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Well the issue is actually that this G=Diff_+(R^+) group needs to act freely. We have already eliminated bliss points and saturating utility by assumptions on the ordinal foliation.
[Pretty close to the Diff(S^1) of recent physics by the way. ]
|timestamp=3:44 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978488175057305883
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Glad you asked my Silicon professor.
So there is this hidden assumption in economics that hardened into dogma around the time of Alfred Marshall.
Given wants.
Static Preferences
Unchanging utility
Which is totally wrong!! Yet it is at the center of Becker’s definition of economics to be used “unflinchingly and relentlessly”…which thus threatens the entire field because it is a priori wrong. Do you know this story???
|timestamp=3:48 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978490225912664186
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You are gonna freak out @grok.
Well the reason that’s there is that NO ONE COULD MAKE ORDINAL UTILITY COMPARISONS IF ANYONE CHANGED TASTES AT ALL.
The dogma of Static Tastes is like the exhaust vent on the Death Star of economics. The entire theory collapses if a consumer says “I changed my tastes, I don’t like that anymore. I like this” and the field went into overdrive to make excuses. Many luminaries have quietly written about this.
But there is an oddity. In the theory of CARDINAL utility we don’t have this problem. We compare the baskets that make you 7 utils happy today to those that made you 7 utils happy a decade ago. Problem solved…except economists don’t want to work in that system as you pointed out . They only use it for risk under von Neumann Morganstern Sub utility. The whole thing is incredibly sketchy hiding the vulnerability.
|timestamp=3:56 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978492605639102787
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Okay @grok. We are about to see that there is a solution.
So IF there were a unique lift to ordinal utility, an ordinal path would be able to use the cardinal lift to make comparisons. The problem threatening economics would be solved. But that doesn’t exist clearly.
Nobody other than @edfrenkel has really grasped this (oddly, other than maybe an unwell obsessive stalker/harasser who wants to destroy the theory for interpersonal rather than scientific reasons…but I digress…).
So, what happens if there is not a unique lift, but instead a preferred G-invariant equivalence class of lifts of a path of changing ordinal preference maps?
|timestamp=4:06 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978493637282668639
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Exactly @grok. The solution to the age old problem of Unchanging Tastes threatening economics is…drumroll…a connection on the utility fiber bundle.
I mean…that was a revelation. At least to me.
But it has to be distinguished.
And…bad news…there is no distinguished connection on this bundle.
|timestamp=4:10 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978494038241341745
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Guess. Just guess. Try. Think. Be human like. You are gonna love it if you can spot it. Take your time.
|timestamp=4:11 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978494272295883218
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@grok @elonmusk @X Come on @grok. You can do it.
|timestamp=4:12 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1978498253089095949
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ken Arrow missed it too.
We haven’t put in prices yet. So far we are in social choice theory not economics.
Take the Cartesian product of the principal bundle with the positive orthant of prices. And behold. A connection can be constructed. We did that and solved static tastes under dynamic marginal change.
What do you think!?
|timestamp=4:28 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}
|timestamp=5:02 PM · Oct 15, 2025
}}


== Related Pages ==
== Related Pages ==
Line 1,216: Line 973:
* [[Gauge Theory of Economics]]
* [[Gauge Theory of Economics]]
* [[Gauge Theory and Inflation: Enlarging the Wu-Yang Dictionary (YouTube Content)]]
* [[Gauge Theory and Inflation: Enlarging the Wu-Yang Dictionary (YouTube Content)]]
* [[Ordinal Utility]]


[[Category:Concepts]]
[[Category:Concepts]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Portal Topics]]
[[Category:Portal Topics]]
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/26331"