Forums  > Trading  > You Know Who - Renaissance Watch  
     
Page 3 of 38Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 37, 38 Prev Next
Display using:  

RFMontraz
NP Italian Stallion

Total Posts: 2012
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 11:27

It's still not clear to me if his name is James, Jim, Jimbo, Jovanni or if in English (American) this doesn't matter because James and Jim are the same thing (like Bill and William).

Anyway, the man is now worth 2.5 billions according to Forbes. Not bad Jimmy...

Edit: I checked and yes, Jim and James are the same thing. And talking of Bills, also Bill Gross is now a billionaire. So is Bacon (the hf manager, not the painter or the philosopher). Nice.

 


Fund Raising and Racketeering, Capital Structure Demolition LLC - What the fuck you mean "not interested" you motherfucker you??

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12657
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 11:30
add onto that that he also one of the most famous differential geometers of the last 40 years....then, you got a cool dude.

Chiral is Tyler Durden

LongTheta
The Snowman

Total Posts: 3072
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 16:28
He also had the great fortune of working with a great advisor on a very good problem that turned out to be very relevant to physics (I believe the name, Chern-Simons theory was coined by particle physicists).

Time is on my side.

Johnny
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4333
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 17:06

I'm wondering what happens to his firm when he retires. Any of you maths dudes know anyone who knows anyone? Or is this a case of adulation from afar?

 


Stab Art - Capital Structure Demolition, LLC Radiation

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12657
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 17:39

My advisor knows him, although I am not sure if they are still in contact.  I'll try to fish some info.


Chiral is Tyler Durden

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 18:24

Does anyone know with certainty if this guy (who apparently is a principal at RT)

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~smirnov/Matytsin.pdf

is the same as this guy:

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search?submit=1;author=Matytsin%2C%20A%20

 


Don't try

kr
Founding Member
NP Raider
Total Posts: 3561
Joined: Apr 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 18:46
almost surely
but it's been 5y since I worked for the guys who worked for him

my bank got pwnd

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4979
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 18:48
Well, one of his co-authors (used to be from MIT) definetly is still there.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

Energetic
Forum Captain

Total Posts: 1409
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 18:57

Almost certainly. It's a very rare name.

 


Quote me as saying I was misquoted.

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 18:58

Excellent!

Thanks for the feedback guys.

The W form is presummably pretty good at what he does  (he's a P over there at RT right....and RT's been doing quite well). 

The I form's work concerns RMT and such and whoever this person was he was very good at what he did before he *vanished* in around '97.

So it's interesting to me to know that these 2 are really the same guy; particularly considering that the I papers are very interesting stuff. 

 


Don't try

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4979
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 18:59

That was my take, RMT then vanished.


Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4979
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 19:17

I am still at a loss as to how a guy doing strings can become useful in stat arb.  In fact, I would suspect that they would be useless thinking about HF stuff.  I could see a dude doing RMT being useful, or a dude like Stephen Smith (number theory), but not strings.  Maybe brand strengthening.


Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

Energetic
Forum Captain

Total Posts: 1409
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 19:34

I belong to the school of thought that string theory guys can make themselves useful in anything that requires brainpower. If this strikes you as too strong of a statement, reduce it to those who're good enough to work with Migdal.

 


Quote me as saying I was misquoted.

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4979
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 19:41
I know what you mean, and I agree, but I was being specific to stat arb.  Going from branes to linux clusters.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 19:58

This is 100% a personally biased view and approximately worth less than 2 cents.

That said, it will take me a lot of effort to explain why I personally think that it makes a lot of sense (to me) that string people do well. I want to clarify in detail what I mean by this and I will when I find the time.

Right now unfortunately, I have a task to take care of so it will have to wait until later today. But I will find that time eventually and I will clarify what I have in mind.

In the mean time, my take is based on and will consider:

1. Multiple reasons related to Energetics point

and equally large number of reasons related to

2. A deep relationship between strings, random matrices, quantum mechanics and computing probabilities.

Again, when I get a chance I will say in detail what I have in mind.


Don't try

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4979
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 20:09
Maybe I am biased from knowing string theorists.  Now, QCD dude I know, fine.   They have become great at lattice work.  All the strings guys I know are computerphobic.  Again, all field theory stuff is good for training the mind to think in terms of probabilities, so maybe I am biased specifically by string theory and stat arb, the former being very cerebral and not tied (yet) to thinking about provable things, and the latter is quick and very applied.  Dunno, I am rambling.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

bloodninja
Forum Surgeon

Total Posts: 904
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 20:23

1. I tottally apologize for leaving you hanging on this.

2. I agree 100% with the computer phobia point

3. I think you're brought up a really outstanding point in general that offers an opportunity to get at several topics we've discussed at various times.  I want to reply in a complete way since it may tie up a couple loose ends.

 


Don't try

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4979
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 20:37

I guess that wehave touched on more than a few points.  Maybe we should generalize.

1) What is the main trait that exists on physicists and maths that allows them to excel in quantfin?

Hard thinking and hard concentration, reductionism, problem solving, curiosity.... I remeber the first time that I saw BDT.  It used the word "propagator" for G(-,-) between vertices.  Probablity, ensembles from stat mech, combinitorial sheah,.... these lend to this.

So we have FI, which is a 2D challenge, and you have equities, which is a 1D challenge, but then you have the latter at HF.  Maybe they have really found some interestig statistical shit.  Like straight stat mech.  I am just saying that I know that top notch physicists don't go to rentec to go

public class MeStringTheorist() {

      make money from i=1 to $


Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

Energetic
Forum Captain

Total Posts: 1409
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 21:17

I was (mis)fortunate to be born in a strange year: 3 guys from  my college class won the international math olympiad when they were high school seniors; them and 3 others were awarded at the nationals; several super bright guys didn't make it to the nationals because there were no more places on the team. Most of these geniuses went to the same college where I went so I had a chance to observe them "live".

None of them went on to strings, so my observations are somewhat tangential to the topic. But one future topologist did demostrate utter reluctance to learn anything but the abstract math. Friends had to take programming tests for him (yes, cheated). Failed comp math test because he didn't open the book on principle. Other geniuses chose to spend 15 minutes on prep and passed everything, no problemo. Some were flexible enough to later leave their abstract fields and moved to something else. For example, one algebraist is involved in networking software development on a part time basis (I surmise, it pays a bit better).

My impression: it's not the original field of expertise that is related to computer phobia. It's the attitude. Some people walk straight lines only, others can execute a curve. Where one will say "fuck it, I'm not interested" another will give it a try and probably succeed.


Quote me as saying I was misquoted.

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4979
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 21:41
Topology?  What, were you at Princeton in the 70s?  There has to be something funny to begin with, a wanderlust or something in these dudes.  I observed something funny last year, when I saw a very accomplished mathematician (young, was 2 years since his very well received thesis from top us uni) leave for a bank.  Now I asked some basic question like, what will you do?, why are you doing it?, how will you do it?, ...., etc.?  Every one of his replies was "I don't know".  Nice 400% raise in base pay considering he didn't even know what he was going to do.  He has since been doing well, I suppose that he has had to learn some OO programming, but I noticed that while he loved math, it was the basic challenge that motivated him.  When the challenge became less attractive, he came for money and women.

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

chiral3
Founding Member

Total Posts: 4979
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-24 21:57
Tangentially, as we have all brought up good points, to your first, rather subjective, point, I always felt a bit like a Courant, always in the company of great mathemticians, but I never really distinguished myself.  My pubs are not earth shattering and I always have felt like a bit of a failure like that.  But that is not me comparing myself to others, they were my own standards, because I have hung out at IAS dunrinf tea and shot the sheah with Witten, and I never compared my accomplishments to his once.  It is funny too, modulo his contribution to math a la index, deRham, ....., if strings never work, people like that would have had one big thought experiment as a career (remember mod math contributions)

Nonius is Satoshi Nakamoto. 物の哀れ

drews


Total Posts: 284
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2004-09-28 19:30

I think computer phobia of string theorists just comes from the fact that we don’t have that much computer exposure doing research. However for most of the fields of contemporary physics numerical simulations is the major part of the research, which formed a view that physicists are always good with computers and string theorists just don’t fit the pattern. Even some string theorists use computer extensively in their research but its not generally encouraged by the community in a way that some people think that “puzzles of a really pure theory can be solved using just paper and pencil”. Thus once during the talk on N=8 SUGRA where a guy did some calculations using Mathematica or something I’ve heard one famous guy saying to the other something along the lines “Nature can’t be that ugly…”

I got into strings around 96-97 that was very promising time.  It was shortly after 2nd superstring revolution and then there was Maldacena’s conjecture and then large extra dimensions of Dvali & Co and then brane-worlds of Randall & Sundrum. I got discouraged a couple of years ago, the more I learnt the more I got discouraged. I mean string theory became just a recreational math (or it has always been), it lost even a remote touch with reality.


LongTheta
The Snowman

Total Posts: 3072
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-10-01 19:10
Strings are in pretty bad shape now with the anthropic principle thing.

Time is on my side.

Nonius
Founding Member
Nonius Unbound
Total Posts: 12657
Joined: Mar 2004
 
Posted: 2004-10-07 15:24

I'm gonna be a dick again on this subject.  First, Simons got into trading independent of his math skillz.  Who the fuck knows whether he is using anything remotely related to Chern Simons to trade.  The dude is smart enough to let people guess on it though.  Second, I am very skeptical that strings, gauge theories, curvature, 4 manifolds, and index theorems really will help directly locate a real or even a statistical arbitrage.  I'm sort interested in how higher topology and geometry could be applied towards modeling some shit in derivatives, but, we are not talking God made rules.  It's just a planet full of apes buying and selling shit, and the structure and balance of fear and greed changes every day because apes think differently all the time, as events and epochs change.  The collective behavior of a planet full of apes is, by my estimates, much harder to model than the universe.

 


Chiral is Tyler Durden

James
NP High Priest

Total Posts: 2024
Joined: May 2004
 
Posted: 2004-10-07 15:37

Simons has emphatically stated in an old interview that he does not use Chern Simmons in trading and that they have nothing to do with each other.

Sadly, in the RenTec internet scrubbing that took place over a year ago, that article is lost down a memory hole. Until an archived page can surface, I can't tell you where he said it.


"Reality is that which, when you choose not to believe in it, doesn't go away." Phillip K. Dick
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 3 of 38Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 37, 38 Prev Next