tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321821.post2809338645020957595..comments2023-12-13T04:18:15.075-08:00Comments on Blue Cat Blog: Markets, regulation, MaxEnt, and the Braess paradoxRuss Abbotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15431389045571531450noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321821.post-22409645043345578742009-08-28T16:09:58.420-07:002009-08-28T16:09:58.420-07:00You're confusing MaxEnt which is an inference ...You're confusing MaxEnt which is an inference method developed by Jaynes which uses the word "entropy' but has nothing to do with efficiency of energy flows and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production which does and seems to be what you are referring to. Which is that a "system will select the path or assembly of paths that minimizes the potential (maximizes the entropy) at the fastest rate given the constraints" (e.g., see http://www.entropylaw.com/entropyproduction.html). That is what you are wondering whether it is being violated (and is usually abbreviated MEP or LMEP). That would be the first point.<br /><br />To your question, MEP or LMEP is not being violated because it is 'subject to contraints' and the way you've set up the problem as a rule-based system where the rules (as you give them) lead to the result you get then that's what you get. LMEP and the theory of nonequilibrium systems which it governs and explicates is subject to hysteresis even under situations that are not so artificially contrived as yours. Typically they do not for example function as maximally efficient steady states over time but 'develop' to senescence, e.g., look at any ecosyystem succession. If you want to have them rune 'efficiently' in your terms on a stable basis the way you describe it then you would have to put constraints into the system something of the kind you suggest to keep it going. Free markets in other words don't remain free (by some definition) unless you put constraints into the system to keep it from crashing at some point.whenpigsflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321821.post-48183168928201291772009-08-16T02:39:52.844-07:002009-08-16T02:39:52.844-07:00The cars will even themselves out as long as infor...The cars will even themselves out as long as information about the relative congestion on the two routes is available. That's not an unreasonable assumption.<br /><br />The bridge might be constructed under any number of circumstances. It could be a public service effort intended to reduce congestion. It could be a private development that makes money by other means, e.g., advertising of some sort. <br /><br />More generally, whether you like this particular example, it's often the case that an apparent improvement to a system makes things worse rather than better. And once such an improvement is in place the mechanism by which things are made worse is typically local, e.g., market-like, whereas preventing that degradation is typically global, i.e., regulatory.Russ Abbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15431389045571531450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321821.post-16692951659965407562009-08-16T02:10:55.279-07:002009-08-16T02:10:55.279-07:00The assumption that 5 cars go by ABD and 5 by ACD...The assumption that 5 cars go by ABD and 5 by ACD is wrong because cars and their numbers are known to blogger but not to car owners . Unlimited traffic bridge also is theoretical . Markets need to be free with very limited regulation. Diagramatic comparison between markets and traffic , confuses more than it clarifies. Cars in traffic and market trends in a country are two different modalities. The co efficient of correlation between the two is ZERO.I.J.Swamyhttp://gjnanaswarupsameera.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com