Third contribution to the ergodic/nonergodic critique: Reply to Davidson, part 2

O'Donnell, R

Third contribution to the ergodic/nonergodic critique: Reply to Davidson, part 2

O'Donnell, R

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2016, 39 (2), pp. 145 - 171
Issue Date:: 2016-04-02

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Third contribution to the ergodic nonergodic critique Reply to Davidson part 2.pdf	Published Version	714.29 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	O'Donnell, R	en_US
dc.date.issued	2016-04-02	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2016, 39 (2), pp. 145 - 171	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0160-3477	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/88981
dc.description.abstract	© 2016, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This second part of my reply to Davidson (2015) discusses mathematical and statistical matters using a simple model of ergodicity whose properties do not match many of those asserted by ENE. It responds to Davidson's counterarguments against pre-infinity indeterminacy, examines the works of Billingsley, Uffink, and Malinvaud as cited by Davidson, and then turns to important methodological issues. As in Part 1 of my reply, Davidson's rejoinder helps make the critique stronger, deeper, and more relevant.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Post Keynesian Economics	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1080/01603477.2016.1169431	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Economics	en_US
dc.title	Third contribution to the ergodic/nonergodic critique: Reply to Davidson, part 2	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	39	en_US
utslib.for	1401 Economic Theory	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	39	en_US

Abstract:

© 2016, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This second part of my reply to Davidson (2015) discusses mathematical and statistical matters using a simple model of ergodicity whose properties do not match many of those asserted by ENE. It responds to Davidson's counterarguments against pre-infinity indeterminacy, examines the works of Billingsley, Uffink, and Malinvaud as cited by Davidson, and then turns to important methodological issues. As in Part 1 of my reply, Davidson's rejoinder helps make the critique stronger, deeper, and more relevant.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/88981