
Dimensional analysis combined with limited experimental data for the
performance of fully submerged propellers have been available since the 1950s.
I present two new scalefree hydrodynamic predictions for the relative
performance of both submerged and surfacepiercing 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 timeindependent, autocorrelations
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
nonstationary, 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 xindependent 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 2point
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 3point 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 FokkerPlanck equations by T. D. Frank. Our comment centers on
the claims of a nonlinear Markov process and a nonlinear FokkerPlanck
equation. First, memory in transition densities is misidentified as a Markov
process. Second, Frank assumes that one can derive a FokkerPlanck equation
from a ChapmanKolmogorov equation, but no proof was given that a
ChapmanKolmogorov equation exists for memorydependent processes. A nonlinear
Markov process is claimed on the basis of a nonlinear diffusion pde for a
1point probability density. We show that, regardless of which initial value
problem one may solve for the 1point 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 memorydependent cases. So
there is neither a nonlinear Markov process nor nonlinear FokkerPlanck
equation for a transition density. The confusion rampant in the literature
arises in part from labeling a nonlinear diffusion equation for a 1point
probability density as nonlinear FokkerPlanck, whereas neither a 1point
density nor an equation of motion for a 1point density defines a stochastic
process, and Borland misidentified a translation invariant 1point density
derived from a nonlinear diffusion equation as a conditional probability
density. In the Appendix we derive FokkerPlanck pdes and ChapmanKolmogorov
eqns. for stochastic processes with finite memory.

The usual derivation of the FokkerPlanck partial differential eqn. assumes
the ChapmanKolmogorov 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 FokkerPlanck pde), and show that a ChapmanKolmogorov 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 ChapmanKolmogorov 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
BlackScholes 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 onepoint densities
of fBm are constructed explicitly. The twopoint density doesn't scale. The
onepoint 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, neoclassical 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 arenonGaussian, scale in time, and have
powerlaw(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 EuroDollar exchange rate between 19992004. In addition, we find that
fluctuations in returns of the exchange rate are uncorrelated and scale as
powerlaws 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 fattailed 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
FokkerPlanck 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 studenttlike 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 FokkerPlanck 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 FokkerPlanck 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 nonGaussian. 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 FokkerPlanck equation. Possible forms
for the diffusion coefficient are given, and related to $W(x,t)$. Finally, we
show how a timeseries 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 FokkerPlanck equation is shown to be an asymmetric exponential
distribution, similar to those observed in intraday currency markets. The
"volatility smile," used by traders to correct the BlackScholes 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 deltahedge 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
FokkerPlanck 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.