Elliot Lipnowski
@elliotlip.bsky.social
2K followers 380 following 740 posts
To be specific, in the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. http://elliotlipnowski.com/
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
elliotlip.bsky.social
I’m sorry to learn your baby isn’t a theorist
elliotlip.bsky.social
That is good too! But I meant noticing you can replace an argument with a bunch of derivative-taking and epsilon-counting to one where an application of Tarski or Krein-Milman does most of the work.
elliotlip.bsky.social
#mathsky notation question. We feel totally comfortable with a decoration being a function (e.g., for a number x, let \bar{x}:=x^2). But what about a case/font/format change as a function (e.g., for a number x, let \mathbf{x} denote the constant function on [0,1] taking value x)?
Reposted by Elliot Lipnowski
nytpitchbot.bsky.social
Jimmy Kimmel has learned his lesson.

by Susan Collins
elliotlip.bsky.social
The same mathematical result, not the same result as the sex. Perverts.
elliotlip.bsky.social
Sex is great but have you tried replacing annoying quantitative bookkeeping arguments in a proof with qualitative arguments to get the same result??
elliotlip.bsky.social
I think there’s still an opportunity for price discrimination since the thing you’re screening on is how much time people are happy to spend on consuming the same content. And extra steps take time—so it’s similar to coupon clipping as price discrimination.
elliotlip.bsky.social
My reasoning: the marginal cost is negligible relative to revenue, so it's a demand question. I think charging more to listen double-speed is effective price discrimination, since I would guess the people that want the fast version are less price-elastic.
elliotlip.bsky.social
This could be an argument for fairness of the "=rp" answer.
elliotlip.bsky.social
Your way of phrasing is way better: if I listen to a book at double speed, should Spotify want to charge me more (>rp), less (<rp), or the same (=rp) as if I listen at regular speed?
elliotlip.bsky.social
I think I disagree, but I’m curious about your reasoning.
elliotlip.bsky.social
Fun micro #econsky problem set question: If p is the price Spotify charges for unit-speed listening (replacing a budget with a price for simplicity) and r>1, should they price r-speed listening =rp, >rp, or
elliotlip.bsky.social
Spotify account gives a budget of audiobook hours before needing to pay for more hours, but if you listen to a 10-hour book at double-speed (so 5 listening hours), it counts as 10 hours of your budget. So they price r-speed listening at exactly r times that of unit-speed listening.
elliotlip.bsky.social
Wednesday Addams is fashionable af
Reposted by Elliot Lipnowski
Reposted by Elliot Lipnowski
nytpitchbot.bsky.social
Schumer, Jeffries propose strongly-worded letter to counter RFK Jr.'s purge at the CDC.
elliotlip.bsky.social
I was under the impression these were called "siblings"
elliotlip.bsky.social
I didn’t know this!
elliotlip.bsky.social
A kind of mechanical approach modifies Hart and Schmeidler's program to check, for every product set B of action profiles, whether some strict CE has marginal supports B_i. Then A^S is the largest B that passes the test (or empty if nothing does).

But there must be something more interpretable!
elliotlip.bsky.social
1) The set CE^S is convex.
2) There's a product set A^S of action profiles such that (i) CE^S is contained in Δ(A^S), and (ii) if CE^S is nonempty, then something in CE^S has support A^S.
3) The closure of CE^S is just the intersection of CE and Δ(A^S).

So it all comes down to what A^S is.
elliotlip.bsky.social
Has anybody developed the theory of STRICT correlated equilibria of a finite game?

#econsky #mathsky #ECsky #TCSsky

I was playing around with it a bit, and here are some things that are easy to show about the set CE^S of strict correlated equilibrium distributions.
elliotlip.bsky.social
Thank you! This is all super helpful.
elliotlip.bsky.social
The set of textbooks not being a lattice, it could be that so such textbook exists.