• Dimensional analysis combined with limited experimental data for the performance of fully submerged propellers have been available since the 1950s. I present two new scale-free hydrodynamic predictions for the relative performance of both submerged and surface-piercing propellers. Larger p/D (pitch to diameter ratio) are more favorable for peak peopeller efficiency and higher speeds; lower p/D are more favorable for carrying loads at low speeds. This conflicts with the common advice to swing as large a diameter as slowly as possible but diameter D has dimensions while p/D is dimensionless, and useful hydrodynamic recommendations must be given in terms of dimensionless variables. For the surface piercing case I compare my scaling predictions with empirical data using a single case in each class as a baseline. One scaling law allows propeller diameter to be predicted from an established baseline where shaft hp and shaft RPM are the variables. The second prediction is inferred from Froude nr. scaling and allows boat speed to be predicted based on shaft horsepower (shp) and weight, given a known baseline in the same class of drag coefficient. I also discuss the existing available data on surface piercing propellers and compare the data with both typical competition data and speed records. In the context of the p/D ratio I discuss the limits on both too high and too low gear ratios. I state for the first time a basic requirement for setting the leading edge camber of surface piercing propellers for optimal acceleration and top speed. I end by using the basic hydrodynamic ideas of circulation conservation and vortex stretching to provide a qualitative picture via the tip vortices of the physics of blade ventilation in surface piercing.
  • The state of a stochastic process evolving over a time $t$ is typically assumed to lie on a normal distribution whose width scales like $t^{1/2}$. However, processes where the probability distribution is not normal and the scaling exponent differs from $\frac{1}{2}$ are known. The search for possible origins of such "anomalous" scaling and approaches to quantify them are the motivations for the work reported here. In processes with stationary increments, where the stochastic process is time-independent, auto-correlations between increments and infinite variance of increments can cause anomalous scaling. These sources have been referred to as the $\it{Joseph}$ $\it{effect}$ the $\it{Noah}$ $\it{effect}$, respectively. If the increments are non-stationary, then scaling of increments with $t$ can also lead to anomalous scaling, a mechanism we refer to as the $\it{Moses}$ $\it{effect}$. Scaling exponents quantifying the three effects are defined and related to the Hurst exponent that characterizes the overall scaling of the stochastic process. Methods of time series analysis that enable accurate independent measurement of each exponent are presented. Simple stochastic processes are used to illustrate each effect. Intraday Financial time series data is analyzed, revealing that its anomalous scaling is due only to the Moses effect. In the context of financial market data, we reiterate that the Joseph exponent, not the Hurst exponent, is the appropriate measure to test the efficient market hypothesis.
  • We analyze the question whether sliding window time averages applied to stationary increment processes converge to a limit in probability. The question centers on averages, correlations, and densities constructed via time averages of the increment x(t,T)=x(t+T)-x(t)and the assumption is that the increment is distributed independently of t. We show that the condition for applying Tchebyshev's Theorem to time averages of functions of stationary increments is strongly violated. We argue that, for both stationary and nonstationary increments, Tchebyshev's Theorem provides the basis for constructing emsemble averages and densities from a single, historic time series if, as in FX markets, the series shows a definite statistical periodicity on the average.
  • ARCH and GARCH models assume either i.i.d. or (what economists lable as) white noise as is usual in regression analysis while assuming memory in a conditional mean square fluctuation with stationary increments. We will show that ARCH/GARCH is inconsistent with uncorrelated increments, violating the i.i.d. and white assumptions and finance data and the efficient market hypothesis as well.
  • The method of cointegration in regression analysis is based on an assumption of stationary increments. Stationary increments with fixed time lag are called integration I(d). A class of regression models where cointegration works was identified by Granger and yields the ergodic behavior required for equilibrium expectations in standard economics. Detrended finance market returns are martingales, and martingales do not satisfy regression equations. We extend the standard discussion to discover the class of detrended processes beyond standard regression models that satisfy integration I(d). In the language of econometrics, the models of interest are unit root models, meaning martingales. Typical martingales do not have stationary increments, and those that do generally do not admit ergodicity. Our analysis leads us to comment on the lack of equilibrium observed earlier between FX rates and relative price levels.
  • The condition for stationary increments, not scaling, detemines long time pair autocorrelations. An incorrect assumption of stationary increments generates spurious stylized facts, fat tails and a Hurst exponent H_s=1/2, when the increments are nonstationary, as they are in FX markets. The nonstationarity arises from systematic uneveness in noise traders' behavior. Spurious results arise mathematically from using a log increment with a 'sliding window'. We explain why a hard to beat market demands martingale dynamics , and martingales with nonlinear variance generate nonstationary increments. The nonstationarity is exhibited directly for Euro/Dollar FX data. We observe that the Hurst exponent H_s generated by the using the sliding window technique on a time series plays the same role as does Mandelbrot's Joseph exponent. Finally, Mandelbrot originally assumed that the 'badly behaved' second moment of cotton returns is due to fat tails, but that nonconvergent behavior is instead direct evidence for nonstationary increments. Summarizing, the evidence for scaling and fat tails as the basis for econophysics and financial economics is provided neither by FX markets nor by cotton price data.
  • We discuss martingales, detrending data, and the efficient market hypothesis for stochastic processes x(t) with arbitrary diffusion coefficients D(x,t). Beginning with x-independent drift coefficients R(t) we show that Martingale stochastic processes generate uncorrelated, generally nonstationary increments. Generally, a test for a martingale is therefore a test for uncorrelated increments. A detrended process with an x- dependent drift coefficient is generally not a martingale, and so we extend our analysis to include the class of (x,t)-dependent drift coefficients of interest in finance. We explain why martingales look Markovian at the level of both simple averages and 2-point correlations. And while a Markovian market has no memory to exploit and presumably cannot be beaten systematically, it has never been shown that martingale memory cannot be exploited in 3-point or higher correlations to beat the market. We generalize our Markov scaling solutions presented earlier, and also generalize the martingale formulation of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) to include (x,t)-dependent drift in log returns. We also use the analysis of this paper to correct a misstatement of the fair game condition in terms of serial correlations in Fama's paper on the EMH.
  • The purpose of this comment is to correct mistaken assumptions and claims made in the paper Stochastic feedback, nonlinear families of Markov processes, and nonlinear Fokker-Planck equations by T. D. Frank. Our comment centers on the claims of a nonlinear Markov process and a nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation. First, memory in transition densities is misidentified as a Markov process. Second, Frank assumes that one can derive a Fokker-Planck equation from a Chapman-Kolmogorov equation, but no proof was given that a Chapman-Kolmogorov equation exists for memory-dependent processes. A nonlinear Markov process is claimed on the basis of a nonlinear diffusion pde for a 1-point probability density. We show that, regardless of which initial value problem one may solve for the 1-point density, the resulting stochastic process, defined necessarily by the transition probabilities, is either an ordinary linearly generated Markovian one, or else is a linearly generated nonMarkovian process with memory. We provide explicit examples of diffusion coefficients that reflect both the Markovian and the memory-dependent cases. So there is neither a nonlinear Markov process nor nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation for a transition density. The confusion rampant in the literature arises in part from labeling a nonlinear diffusion equation for a 1-point probability density as nonlinear Fokker-Planck, whereas neither a 1-point density nor an equation of motion for a 1-point density defines a stochastic process, and Borland misidentified a translation invariant 1-point density derived from a nonlinear diffusion equation as a conditional probability density. In the Appendix we derive Fokker-Planck pdes and Chapman-Kolmogorov eqns. for stochastic processes with finite memory.
  • The usual derivation of the Fokker-Planck partial differential eqn. assumes the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation for a Markov process. Starting instead with an Ito stochastic differential equation we argue that finitely many states of memory are allowed in Kolmogorov's two pdes, K1 (the backward time pde) and K2 (the Fokker-Planck pde), and show that a Chapman-Kolmogorov eqn. follows as well. We adapt Friedman's derivation to emphasize that finite memory is not excluded. We then give an example of a Gaussian transition density with 1 state memory satisfying both K1, K2, and the Chapman-Kolmogorov eqns. We begin the paper by explaining the meaning of backward diffusion, and end by using our interpretation to produce a new, short proof that the Green function for the Black-Scholes pde describes a Martingale in the risk neutral discounted stock price.
  • There is much confusion in the literature over Hurst exponents. Recently, we took a step in the direction of eliminating some of the confusion. One purpose of this paper is to illustrate the difference between fBm on the one hand and Gaussian Markov processes where H not equal to 1/2 on the other. The difference lies in the increments, which are stationary and correlated in one case and nonstationary and uncorrelated in the other. The two- and one-point densities of fBm are constructed explicitly. The two-point density doesn't scale. The one-point density is identical with that for a Markov process with H not 1/2. We conclude that both Hurst exponents and histograms for one point densities are inadequate for deducing an underlying stochastic dynamical system from empirical data.
  • This article is a response to the recent Worrying Trends in Econophysics critique written by four respected theoretical economists. Two of the four have written books and papers that provide very useful critical analyses of the shortcomings of the standard textbook economic model, neo-classical economic theory and have even endorsed my book. Largely, their new paper reflects criticism that I have long made and that our group as a whole has more recently made. But I differ with the authors on some of their criticism, and partly with their proposed remedy.
  • Arguably the most important problem in quantitative finance is to understand the nature of stochastic processes that underlie market dynamics. One aspect of the solution to this problem involves determining characteristics of the distribution of fluctuations in returns. Empirical studies conducted over the last decade have reported that they arenon-Gaussian, scale in time, and have power-law(or fat) tails. However, because they use sliding interval methods of analysis, these studies implicitly assume that the underlying process has stationary increments. We explicitly show that this assumption is not valid for the Euro-Dollar exchange rate between 1999-2004. In addition, we find that fluctuations in returns of the exchange rate are uncorrelated and scale as power-laws for certain time intervals during each day. This behavior is consistent with a diffusive process with a diffusion coefficient that depends both on the time and the price change. Within scaling regions, we find that sliding interval methods can generate fat-tailed distributions as an artifact, and that the type of scaling reported in many previous studies does not exist.
  • We show by explicit closed form calculations that a Hurst exponent H that is not 1/2 does not necessarily imply long time correlations like those found in fractional Brownian motion. We construct a large set of scaling solutions of Fokker-Planck partial differential equations where H is not 1/2. Thus Markov processes, which by construction have no long time correlations, can have H not equal to 1/2. If a Markov process scales with Hurst exponent H then it simply means that the process has nonstationary increments. For the scaling solutions, we show how to reduce the calculation of the probability density to a single integration once the diffusion coefficient D(x,t) is specified. As an example, we generate a class of student-t-like densities from the class of quadratic diffusion coefficients. Notably, the Tsallis density is one member of that large class. The Tsallis density is usually thought to result from a nonlinear diffusion equation, but instead we explicitly show that it follows from a Markov process generated by a linear Fokker-Planck equation, and therefore from a corresponding Langevin equation. Having a Tsallis density with H not equal to 1/2 therefore does not imply dynamics with correlated signals, e.g., like those of fractional Brownian motion. A short review of the requirements for fractional Brownian motion is given for clarity, and we explain why the usual simple argument that H unequal to 1/2 implies correlations fails for Markov processes with scaling solutions. Finally, we discuss the question of scaling of the full Green function g(x,t;x',t') of the Fokker-Planck pde.
  • We study a scenario under which variable step random walks give anomalous statistics. We begin by analyzing the Martingale Central Limit Theorem to find a sufficient condition for the limit distribution to be non-Gaussian. We note that the theorem implies that the scaling index $\zeta$ is 1/2. For corresponding continuous time processes, it is shown that the probability density function $W(x;t)$ satisfies the Fokker-Planck equation. Possible forms for the diffusion coefficient are given, and related to $W(x,t)$. Finally, we show how a time-series can be used to distinguish between these variable diffusion processes and L\'evy dynamics.
  • A new theory for pricing options of a stock is presented. It is based on the assumption that while successive variations in return are uncorrelated, the frequency with which a stock is traded depends on the value of the return. The solution to the Fokker-Planck equation is shown to be an asymmetric exponential distribution, similar to those observed in intra-day currency markets. The "volatility smile," used by traders to correct the Black-Scholes pricing is shown to provide an alternative mechanism to implement the new options pricing formulae derived from our theory.
  • In a seminal paper in 1973, Black and Scholes argued how expected distributions of stock prices can be used to price options. Their model assumed a directed random motion for the returns and consequently a lognormal distribution of asset prices after a finite time. We point out two problems with their formulation. First, we show that the option valuation is not uniquely determined; in particular, stratergies based on the delta-hedge and CAMP (Capital Asset Pricing Model) are shown to provide different valuations of an option. Second, asset returns are known not to be Gaussian distributed. Empirically, distributions of returns are seen to be much better approximated by an exponential distribution. This exponential distribution of asset prices can be used to develop a new pricing model for options that is shown to provide valuations that agree very well with those used by traders. We show how the Fokker-Planck formulation of fluctuations (i.e., the dynamics of the distribution) can be modified to provide an exponential distribution for returns. We also show how a singular volatility can be used to go smoothly from exponential to Gaussian returns and thereby illustrate why exponential returns cannot be reached perturbatively starting from Gaussian ones, and explain how the theory of 'stochastic volatility' can be obtained from our model by making a bad approximation. Finally, we show how to calculate put and call prices for a stretched exponential density.
  • Econometrics is based on the nonempiric notion of utility. Prices, dynamics, and market equilibria are supposed to be derived from utility. Utility is usually treated by economists as a price potential, other times utility rates are treated as Lagrangians. Assumptions of integrability of Lagrangians and dynamics are implicitly and uncritically made. In particular, economists assume that price is the gradient of utility in equilibrium, but I show that price as the gradient of utility is an integrability condition for the Hamiltonian dynamics of an optimization problem in econometric control theory. One consequence is that, in a nonintegrable dynamical system, price cannot be expressed as a function of demand or supply variables. Another consequence is that utility maximization does not describe equiulibrium. I point out that the maximization of Gibbs entropy would describe equilibrium, if equilibrium could be achieved, but equilibrium does not describe real markets. To emphasize the inconsistency of the economists' notion of 'equilibrium', I discuss both deterministic and stochastic dynamics of excess demand and observe that Adam Smith's stabilizing hand is not to be found either in deterministic or stochastic dynamical models of markets, nor in the observed motions of asset prices. Evidence for stability of prices of assets in free markets simply has not been found.