Re: Friedman on Markowitz

From: Glyn Holton
Affiliation:
Address:
Date: 29 Nov 2006
Time: 09:43:54

Comments

Yes, Friedman complained that the paper wasn't economics, and he felt they couldn't grant a Ph.D. in economics for a thesis that wasn't about economics. The incident is recounted in Bernstein http://www.riskbook.com/titles/bernstein_p_(1993).htm Markowitz also penned a first-hand account that appeared in an "update" appendix to a reissue of his 1959 book. As for Wittgenstein's Ph.D., I think the whole affair was more stressful for Moore and Russell than it was for him. They both knew he was an accomplished genius who was fully deserving of a Ph.D. The problem was trying to get him to jump through the minimal hoops that would warrant the degree. Wittgenstein wanted his previous work to count as a thesis. Russell and Moore wanted more. The acrimony that followed permanently damaged relationships, especially between Wittgenstein and Russell. I didn't know your story of the defense. I am sure it didn't matter what Wittgenstein chose to talk about in that room. For Russell and Moore, it must have been a formality they just had to get through. My worst defense story made the rounds while I was at Carnegie-Mellon. My memory is sketchy, and looking back, I can't be sure it wasn't an urban legend of sorts. A math Ph.D. candidate was studying a new mathematical construct. I don't know what. Let's call these "non-Riemaninan hyper-sets." The thesis developed all sorts of results concerning non-Riemanian hyper-sets. All examples, however, considered only the trivial case of the empty non-Riemanian hyper-set. Presumably, this was because more interesting non-Riemanian hyper-sets were just too complicated to include in an example. The guy didn't get his degree because one of his professors studied the matter and proved that interesting non-Riemanian hyper-sets didn't exist. The empty non-Riemanian hyper-set was the only one.

Disclaimer